Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL
(By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 17 November.

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 November.

AUTUMN STATEMENT

Ordered,

That there be laid before the House a copy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement 1988.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Mathematics and Physics Graduates

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new plans he has to attract more mathematics and physics graduates into teaching.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): We have had in place for more than two years an action programme to attract more mathematics and physics graduates into initial teacher training. It has reversed the earlier trend of decline in recruitment. This action programme continues. We monitor recruitment trends closely and we will not hesitate to take further action should it be necessary.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the considerable concern felt by industry and commerce about the number of school leavers going to university to study mathematics and physics? Will he assure the House that he will examine carefully every proposal from industrialists to ensure that our education system produces more actuaries than artists and more physicists than philosophers?

Mr. Butcher: I am glad that my hon. Friend did not refer to an avalanche of accountants or a surfeit of solicitors. I have a great deal of sympathy with his point. What matters is that we have an adequate supply of

teachers who are qualified to teach mathematics and physics to advanced level so that the admission tutors of universities can be pleased with the quality of applicants for places.
My hon. Friend will be encouraged to know of the £1,300 bursary for trainee teachers of mathematics, physics and craft, design and technology. In a previous incarnation I chaired a committee that involved the new partnership programme in bringing £43 million extra expenditure into higher education, in conjunction with the private sector, to attack the shortages in exactly these disciplines.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that when our bright young graduates see all the rewards that are paid to so-called yuppies in the City it is no wonder that they decide not to become mathematics and physics teachers? Does not the solution lie in the Government's hands—to ensure that these teachers are properly rewarded on a scale commensurate with their role in society and their importance to the nation?

Mr. Butcher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. Our success in attracting appropriately qualified teachers will be a function of two factors; first, the overall level of teachers' pay, which has risen by an average 31 per cent. since March 1986, and by 13 per cent. in real terms—a major achievement. Secondly, an able, newly qualified mathematics or physics teacher can expect, because of the shortage, a rapid rise in promotion and pay. He or she also has the additional opportunity to tap into incentive allowances of between £800 and £4,000 a year, so the framework already exists.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the effect that the present shortage is bound to have and is having on the quality of young people entering engineering and science courses, and concerns expressed by the CBI and the headmasters' conference, among others, will my hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the entry and re-entry of people into this profession and not even rule out possible differential payments in grants and salaries?

Mr. Butcher: The question of flexibility is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will consider in due course with all those who advise him. We must look very hard at the fact that 400,000 teachers are employed, but that there are 400,000 qualified teachers in what is referred to as the pool of inactive teachers—another unfortunate acronym, the PITS. It is that particular category of teachers currently outside the service that we must closely examine when considering incentives to return to the profession, particularly in the shortage subjects.

Mr. Straw: I offer our congratulations to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on his transfer.
Does he accept that his reply is one of desperate complacency that does not begin to match the scale of the problem? Applications for physics, mathematics and chemistry are down 10 per cent. this year, and half the teachers of mathematics and physics were not qualified at degree level to teach those subjects.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when his hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in his capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, stated in a recent document that


a major argument is brewing up about whether we should be aiming to produce more teachers, in order to maintain staff-student ratios at their existing high point,
the argument to which he was drawing attention is one inside the Department of Education and Science and with the Treasury, as to whether teacher shortages can be solved by recruiting more teachers or by making classes larger. On the side of which argument is the Secretary of State?

Mr. Butcher: I may tell the hon. Member that we treat this question very seriously and it is a matter of concern, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have already adduced. As to recruitment and entry into the profession, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that in terms of training applications, there was a 10 per cent. reduction in mathematics applicants and a 12 per cent. reduction in physics applicants. By the same token, recruitment into the profession last year was up by 33 per cent. in mathematics and by 49 per cent. in physics. Nevertheless, it is the question of applications that we must address.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be bringing forward programmes on in-service training. I believe that the package of measures that we have in place will tackle the short-term difficulties, but we have a common cause in tackling the medium-term problem.

Student Support

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans to bring forward changes in the system of student financial support with effect for the academic year 1989–90.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We announced last Friday that, subject to parliamentary approval, mandatory awards to students will be increased by 5 per cent. in the 1989–90 academic year.

Mr. Beith: Even that award will not make up for the decline of more than 20 per cent. in student awards since the 1970s. How are we to evaluate that against the background of the recommendation of the Minister responsible for higher education, vouchsafed to journalists, that eight named universities should be able to charge an extra £500 in teaching fees? Is that another example of journalists getting it all wrong, or is that the real agenda?

Mr. Baker: My proposals for changes in student maintenance will be announced shortly. I deplore the fact that discussion documents were leaked. There is a great debate on the funding of higher education, both here and overseas. There is also a growing desire among institutions for greater independence. The Government have no proposals for students in receipt of mandatory awards to contribute part of their tuition fees, but higher education institutions have a legal right to charge tuition fees, and to prevent their doing so would require legislation.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that ours is the most generous system of student support in the Western world and that every other developed country has some form of student loans system? In those countries there is greater participation from all backgrounds in higher education than there is in this country. If we want increased participation in, and access to, higher education, would it not make sense to introduce some form of top-up loan scheme in addition to basic student grants?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has anticipated somewhat a statement that I shall shortly be making concerning student maintenance support. My hon. Friend fired three target rounds: we do have the most generous system of student support in the world; we do spend a larger proportion of our gross national product on higher education than any other country in Europe; and yet we still have relatively low levels of access. The proposals that I shall shortly announce will try to address that problem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How will the Secretary of State address the central problem that far too few 16-year-olds stay in full-time education? Any proposals on student grants should address that problem. In my constituency, 24 per cent. of those who get good O-levels or GCSEs do not stay on in education, and all the Government's proposals to increase fees and for loans send one message to that group of youngsters—that education is expensive and that it is not for them. How will the Secretary of State address that problem, particularly when he continues to cut the grant each year?

Mr. Baker: We are uprating the grant next year by the forecast rate of inflation for the last quarter of next year. I encourage youngsters to stay on at 16 and 18, and this is probably the case across our political spectrum. I am glad to say—the hon. Gentleman should recognise this—that there are 200,000 extra students in higher education than there were when we came into office.

Education Reform

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on progress in introducing the national curriculum.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): In accordance with my right hon. Friend's declared timetable, work on the core subjects—mathematics, science and English—is now well advanced. Work on the other foundation subjects will follow. We intend to introduce the national curriculum progressively from autumn 1989 onwards.

Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall from correspondence that head teachers in rural schools in my constituency are worried that the introduction of the national curriculum will be adversely affected by the new rules on charging for educational visits and expeditions? Will she confirm that it cannot have been any intention of Ministers to reduce educational opportunities in that way?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government's new proposals on charging will not affect either the principle of free education in our schools or the national curriculum or other curricular subjects. However, there have been some considerable misunderstandings about the Government's new charging proposals. Before the Education Reform Act was passed, some authorities were charging for some activities in schools. Those authorities were taken to court and the court ruled against them. The local authorities then asked the Department of Education and Science to clarify the situation and after considerable consultation on the Education Reform Act we have attempted to fall in with what local authority associations suggested to us on charging for activities in schools. There are three general rules: first, charges for board and lodgings may be made; secondly, charges for any activities that take place wholly


or mainly out of school hours may be made; thirdly, indivdual music lessons may be charged for. For other visits to theatres or museums during school hours, parents may be asked to make voluntary contributions. If the parents so decide—they have a choice about whether to do so—those activities can continue.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State giving a guarantee that testing at 11 would not become a means of reintroducing the 11-plus through the back door? How is that compatible with the system in the borough of Trafford, which still has grammar schools and the 11-plus? It is important that we have a proper answer to that.

Mrs. Rumbold: Any school that currently administers the 11-plus as part of its admissions policy will be able to continue to do so. That will not cut across the assessment processes that will be part and parcel of the introduction of the national curriculum, where all children will be assessed at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. The tests that are taken at 11, 14 and 16 will be aggregated and published.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that many teachers now welcome the national curriculum, but that there is some anxiety among professionals about the amount of time available for training teachers in their new duties, particularly those who also have to carry out teaching responsibilities in the smaller schools?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced two extra days to allow teachers to complete adequate in-service training for the introduction of the national curriculum.

Environmental Research

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has instructed the research councils to increase their planned future expenditure on environmental research since 27 September.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): There is no need for the Government to instruct the Natural Environment Research Council to spend money in this way. That is its job. The council will, of course, benefit from its share of the substantial increase in the science budget which was announced last Tuesday. This will be decided by my right hon. Friend, after he has considered the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

Mr. Ross: With 95 per cent. of the earth's circulating carbon within the biological feedback processes in the oceans, why is the Natural Environment Research Council £1 million short of funding for the Discovery cruise in the north Atlantic next year?

Mr. Jackson: There are two different kinds of environmental research which are supported through the NERC. Basic research into the environment is funded by the Department of Education and Science. Expenditure on that has increased by more than one third in real terms since we came into office. Of course, the Secretary of State has to consider the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' advice, to which I have already referred. As for environmental research for specific purposes, the

requirements of Government Departments and of industry are constantly changing and priorities constantly have to be reassessed. There has been a reduction in such commissioned work at the NERC, but I emphasise that the council has maintained its great strength in basic environmental research.

Dr. Bray: Of the £120 million increase in expenditure on science and technology in 1989–90 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, how much is accounted for by the 3·5 per cent. increase in costs in the universities and research councils above the level expected a year ago? How much is accounted for by the £47 million increase in earmarked programmes for other than scientific purposes, of which only £3 million is for AIDS? Does that not leave a real increase of only £24 million in the budget for the science base?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is always carping. On this occasion he is trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. I can assure him that this gift horse has real gold teeth. I prefer the language of Sir David Phillips, who described the settlement as very encouraging indeed.

GCSE

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress in GCSE examinations.

Mrs. Rumbold: The recent report from Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the introduction of the GCSE shows that it is off to a good start, due in large part to the hard work and commitment of teachers. The GCSE examining groups, in partnership with the new School Examinations and Assessment Council, are already viewing syllabuses and procedures to ensure that next year is better.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only real and objective test of the GCSE is how those who sat it this year perform at A-level in two years' time? Will she therefore ensure that there is no reduction, watering down or tampering with A-level standards? GCSE must not be seen as a Trojan horse to mask any reduction in our drive towards excellence.

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not accept that A-levels should be the only test of how good the GCSE examination is, as many other objective tests can be applied. None the less, I agree that it is very important indeed that A-levels must not in any sense be changed or watered down, so that young people who have taken the GCSE can demonstrate beyond doubt how excellent the introduction of the new examination is.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that GCSE pupils should be used to tackle the chronic skill shortages that exist in this country, particularly in one area? Does she agree that one skill shortage that is capable of embarrassing the Government, and to which pupils can be drawn, is the special lack of skill displayed by top Treasury civil servants in their failure to operate tape recorders?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that the new GCSE examination will enable all pupils who complete the two-years of course work and take the end of the year examinations to follow all the skills that will be required by future generations seeking work in this country.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend accept that the GCSE results for the past year have been very gratifying indeed and give the lie to all those who criticised the introduction of the examination some 18 months ago? However, does she agree that perhaps it lacks some of the essential rigour that is necessary to ensure good A-level results?

Mrs. Rumbold: I agree with my hon. Friend that all the carping about the GCSE being introduced too quickly, without enough money and without sufficient support has been proved wrong. In large part, a great deal of the success has been due to the hard work and effort of teachers and pupils and the support that the children have received from their parents. I believe that the A-levels will come out well, just as we expect, as a result of the good preparation that the GCSE has given to the students taking it.

Mr. Steinberg: I agree with the Minister. If it had not been for the hard work and dedication of the teaching staff, the GCSE would have been a failure, because the Government did not provide enough resources. Can the Minister guarantee that in next year's round of negotiations more resources will be provided for books and equipment so that the GCSE will not depend solely on the teachers' dedication?

Mrs. Rumbold: The GCSE is the best resourced examination that has ever been introduced in Britain. Its success has as much to do with the excellent resourcing as with the determination of the teachers.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest information available on proposed sites for city technology colleges.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Over £30 million—an un-precedented sum—has already been pledged by industry. Much more will be raised.

Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his CTC initiative is widely welcomed by parents, who see it as an excellent chance for spreading choice and opportunity in education? Will he ensure that the areas that have not yet benefited from the CTC programme will be considered seriously as a means of equipping today's children with the skills that they will need in tomorrow's labour market?

Mr. Baker: The CTC programme is a great success. Kingshurst CTC opened in September and Nottingham and Teesside CTCs will open next year. Only today, plans for a CTC in Bradford have been announced. Further announcements will be made shortly.

Mr. Flannery: Despite the lyrical account of CTCs by the Secretary of State, is it not true that they have run into great difficulties? They are not popular and the amount of money coming from private industry is so insufficient that the Government have to fall back on taxpayers' funds. Why does the Secretary of State not admit that, instead of selectively choosing people for the CTC's, giving them special financial favours and taking money away from the

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman lives in another world. When I visited the Kingshurst CTC on Friday there was a

board on the door showing the names of the 64 companies that have supported it. The hon. Gentleman said that the CTCs are not popular. There was over-subscription for places at Kingshurst CTC by 2:1. Now, Nottingham and Teesside CTCs are leafleting their areas and I am sure that there will be substantial over-subscription by the parents in those areas.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the CTC initiative should be encouraged to the maximum extent? Will he confirm that local education authorities are entitled to set up similar institutions if they so wish and should be encouraged to do so?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for the help that he gave in fashioning the policies for the CTCs. He is right. If local authorities co-operate—more local authorities are now beginning to do so—it eases the process of establishing CTCs. CTCs will be popular and successful schools.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recall his words when he launched the CTC initiative? He said that the majority of the money would come from private sector initiative. Will he now tell us how much private sector money is involved in the Bradford CTC? Is it the case that, like all the other CTCs that the Secretary of State has announced, the majority of the money is to come from the taxpayer, not from Dixons and the private sector? Is the Minister reluctant to give that figure because it will show how cheap it is for the chairman of a company such as Dixons to buy a knighthood from the Government?

Mr. Baker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a most malicious and unfair allegation. Perhaps he would like to repeat it outside the House, where the person whom he slanders could no doubt take appropriate action. The hon. Gentleman asked about raising funds. We asked sponsors to provide £1 million, which is the initial amount. More than £1 million has been provided for Bradford. In the case of Kingshurst, the £1 million has grown to £2 million and Kingshurst is now searching for £3 million. That is what happens. Once the CTCs are established, more companies support them. It is about time that the Opposition stopped attacking CTCs and recognised that they will be successful and popular.

Inner London Boroughs (Education Functions)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from inner London boroughs regarding the level of the specific grant-aid for 1988–89 to cover work preparatory to becoming education authorities.

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government are making available specific grant of £3 million in 1988–89 for the preparatory work of the inner London councils. Some councils have queried their allocations within this figure, but we think that it will be adequate to meet reasonable preparatory costs.

Mr. Hughes: Southwark will spend £460,000 this year in preparing for the handover. The three inner London Tory boroughs have forecast overspends of 32, 64 and 92 per cent. In view of that, how can the Minister of State justify giving each inner London borough only £240,000 when her Department clearly said that it was committed to


a successful handover? What should rate-capped boroughs do? Should they skimp on education provision, or should they cut other hard-pressed services?

Mrs. Rumbold: For this financial year, we think that we have given adequate money, £3 million, to enable councils to carry out the preparatory work that they are required to do. In case there is any query about next year's allocation —the £10 million that the Government have given for 1989–90—we have invited Southwark council in particular to give estimates of what it thinks it might spend. If it does that before Friday, we will consider the estimates.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the tentative nature of the Minister's reply illustrate the enormous problems that will face inner London boroughs? In view of what her right hon. Friend said in debate, will she look carefully at the organisation of special schools in central London? If the boroughs have to look after them instead of having a consortium, which is presently being suggested, will not the expenses be even greater and the efficiency of the special schools service much diminished?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that it will give the hon. Gentleman some pleasure to know that we are carefully monitoring the progress of each of the 12 London authorities that are preparing plans. They are working together to seek the best solution for special schools. Not one of them has presented the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman might have hoped to see. They all welcome taking on responsibility for education and appear to believe that they can deliver it better than ILEA.

Natural Environment Research Council

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Jackson: The new chairman, Professor John Knill, took up his appointment on 1 October and my right hon. Friend has yet to meet him. However, I met Profesor Knill informally in September and we discussed a range of topics concerning the council's activities.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the breeding failure of a number of sea bird species in Shetland. Finding the causes of that will require a considerable amount of research, not least into the availability and abundance of sand eels. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the NERC to play its full part and that, along with other Departments, his Department will provide resources for that research? If the North sea project were to extend to parts of the sea north of the Wash, does he agree that some of the information from that might help?

Mr. Jackson: Decisions on these matters are made by the Secretary of State only on advice from the scientific community and the research councils, once they have had their allocation of funds. My right hon. Friend has not yet received advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils about the disposal of the considerable additional new resources that have been provided. Those resources have not yet been allocated to research councils. I am sure that note will be taken of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Schools (Opting Out)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about schools wishing to opt out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department has received inquiries from a large number of parents, governors and others about the opt-out provisions of the Education Reform Act. The Electoral Reform Society has now arranged, or is arranging, ballots of parents at a number of schools considering grant-maintained status.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give an early and favourable reply to the governors of St. James' church school in Bolton, who are fighting to save their school from threatened closure? Is it not ironic that Bolton's Labour council should choose such a popular school to close when 99 per cent. of the parents in an 83 per cent. turnout voted so convincingly to seize the Government's lifeline?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on a particular school, because when the proposals come to me I have a quasi-judicial position and I have to examine the proposals carefully. I assure him that if the governing body puts forward these proposals, it has to go through a statutory procedure. I shall deal with the matter—when the statutory period of two months has elapsed—as quickly as possible. I am delighted that so many schools are seriously considering grant-maintained status. This is all part of our great reforming programme. Competition will make for better quality. I understand from the Electoral Reform Society that 15 ballots are expected before Christmas.

Mr. Lewis: When the Secretary of State receives the application from St. James' church school, will he note that £1·5 million must be spent on that school because of a ground fault on which the school is built, which is why the local authority took the decision to close that school? Will he also take note of the fact that 700 plus places are surplus to requirements and have been the subject of a report by the Audit Commission? Will he condemn the opportunism of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)?

Mr. Baker: I am not prepared to condemn the opportunism of one of my colleagues, who is making a constituency point. It is because of these factors that the holder of my office cannot, and should not, make any comments about a particular school, because the matter has to come to him and he will have to look at it in his quasi-judicial role.

Mr. Madel: Will my right hon. Friend always look sympathetically at schools that get good examination results, have strong parental support and are threatened by closure only because of party political manoeuvring by county councillors and inexplicable hostility by local education authority officials?

Mr. Baker: Those are factors that I have to bear in mind when I am considering these matters. We have already made it clear, in the various guidelines that we have given, that one should not be too hasty in closing down schools of proven worth, as has happened in the past.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State must be aware that he is placing local education authorities in an impossible position. On the one hand, he has been putting them under pressure to close surplus places. On the other hand, any school now faced with closure can decide, understandably, to seek to opt out. What undertakings will the Secretary of State give to enable local education authorities, whether Conservative or Labour, to implement his policy of orderly school closures? What undertakings will he give to ensure that in capital spending, as in current, there will be no favourable treatment, no bribery of schools to entice them to opt out?

Mr. Baker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman now shifts his grounds of criticism of grant-maintained status. As the Education Reform Act was going through its stages in the House, his argument was that few schools would opt for this status, although we said that many schools would be attracted by it. It was also said that very few parents would vote. The hon. Gentleman should look at the first two ballots. He has repeatedly raised the question of capital, and I want to make it clear that we are not offering financial advantages to grant-maintained schools. We shall have to consider the capital needs of such schools as they apply, and grant-maintained schools will receive current funding on the same basis as other schools in the authority.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to opt out, a school will need to demonstrate strong parental support and good leadership from governors and from the head of staff—all factors that can only benefit pupils? Therefore, is it not a fact that the more schools that opt out, the better it will be for our children?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. This option is now available and requires the considerable commitment of parents and governors, but that is in the full strain of our education policy. We are passing more responsibility down the line to individual schools and governors. We are also increasing competition in the education system. That is good for quality.

School Closures

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will review the procedures for school closures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butcher: No, Sir.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister explain how he will maintain his impartiality under section 12, regarding the possibility of school closures, while, at the same time, encouraging those same schools to opt out?

Mr. Butcher: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the fact that applications have been suspended until 30 November. If the schools are eligible for grant-maintained status, that will allow them sufficient time to decide whether to apply.
The question of the criteria and attitude towards school closures has not changed. The procedures are well known. Unfortunately, the local education authority in the hon. Lady's constituency has had a chequered career, to put it

mildly, in the way that it has presented its proposals, but she knows the factors in which we shall be interested if the authority puts forward alternative proposals.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that school closures and opting out are consistent with Conservative party policy to give parents power? Are we not the party that gave trade union members their power and council tenants their power?

Mr. Butcher: The answers to my hon. Friend's questions are yes, Sir, yes and yes.

Ms. Armstrong: As the Government are making it virtually impossible for local authorities to make closure proposals and, therefore, there are many surplus places throughout the country with which the Government are not assisting local authorities, will the Minister alter the procedures by which capital moneys for local authorities are calculated so that those schools under the authority of the local education department will have the opportunity to compete fairly with those schools which the Secretary of State is funding separately?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Lady has missed the whole point of the Education Reform Act, which is to provide parents and governing bodies with more power by encouraging their schools to be filled according to parental choice. In due course that will have an effect on the capital allocation and maintenance programmes for those schools.

School Governors

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the full quota of school governors under the statutory arrangements has been obtained; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: The information available so far from local authorities suggests that most schools are successfully filling all the places on their governing bodies.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a gratifying response in the first year in which extended opportunities for gubernatorial positions have been available? In view of the importance of forging closer links between school and industry, is she satisfied from the returns so far that a goodly proportion of people with business experience are taking up those positions?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. We are extremely satisfied with the response that we have received from parents in the election of parent-governors. In those authorities where they have managed fully to constitute their governing bodies, we are also delighted to see that there has been fair representation from business and industry. When I visited my hon. Friend's county of Essex yesterday, I found that the county has been particularly successful in that venture.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister make sure that there are no deterrents to people becoming school governors, such as the establishment of a CTC, as has happened in Bradford, where the establishment of a CTC may well threaten the existence of secondary schools? If that is the case, as seems likely, people will not be enthusiastic to become governors and it will be yet another blow against the state sector, as was the establishment of CTCs in the first place.

Mrs. Rumbold: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to worry. There is a need for new schools in Bradford, and the governing bodies will be constituted by the normal procedures of electing both parents and business men. He can be assured that in Bradford of all places a CTC will be welcomed by the community and needed by the pupils.

Teacher Training

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to improve the quality of teacher training and to make it more relevant to the needs of modern industry.

Mr. Butcher: The Government already have in place a number of measures designed to improve teacher training and to give due importance to business and economic factors, in particular the tough new criteria for pre-service training courses introduced in 1984 and the comprehensive in-service training grant scheme introduced in 1987. My Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Training Agency are currently collaborating on a range of specific projects in this area.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he agree that many of our excellent education reforms will be undermined if teachers are not adequately trained? Does he accept that we should take a hard look at some teacher training colleges to ensure that the courses that they offer and the methods that they use will properly equip our children for society? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps teacher training colleges should be next on our agenda for reform?

Mr. Butcher: Teacher training is the issue of the moment. It is our view that we should focus on quality, relevance and practicality of training. We do not want the colleges to become playgrounds for behavioural scientists, and thankfully, the majority of them are not. This is a serious question that must be addressed as a matter of great priority.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to mark the arrival of the President of Senegal. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of observing the enormous damage to the environment during her most successful visit to Poland, on which my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish warmly to congratulate her? Is she aware that during her absence the United Nations published a survey of tree damage in 22 European countries, among which Great Britain appears to he one of the greatest sufferers? In the light of this new and alarming evidence, will she accelerate the Government's response to the latest report of the Select Committee on the Environment on air pollution, which has been outstanding for about six months?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. I did not observe tree damage in Poland although I saw a number of chemical factories in the distance and became aware of the problems that Poland is having. I know of the report to which he has referred. We should like to see the entire report, because we think that the summary does not tell the whole story. I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend undertakes as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I shall make further inquiries to ascertain when we can expect to have the reply ready. I shall do my level best to accelerate the process. I am well aware of the important work that is carried out by the Committee. Similarly, my hon. Friend will be aware of the £1 billion programme on which we are embarking to try to reduce acid rain, to which our coal-fired power stations contribute. It is unfortunate that our coal contains a large amount of sulphur, and it is expensive to get rid of it.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that only a minority of pensioners have difficulty in making ends meet?

The Prime Minister: Pensioners' incomes have increased enormously during the lifetime of the Government. Every pensioner has a basic pension, and most have a second pension. Those who do not have a second pension have income support. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the increases in income support were announced last week.

Mr. Kinnock: The House and the country will note the Prime Minister's refusal to answer my question about the Chancellor. Can she tell us whether her refusal is because she agrees with the Chancellor, or because she disagrees with him?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman obviously tries to ask very selective questions and thus to avoid discussing the enormous improvement in the incomes of pensioners during the lifetime of this Government, and the fact that Britain's spending on the elderly is the third highest in Europe as a proportion of gross domestic product. Pensioners now have more security in their basic pensions, and in the increases in those pensions than they ever had under the tricks of the Labour party.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that only a small minority of pensioners have difficulty in making ends meet, or is she as ashamed of him as she should be?

The Prime Minister: If it had not been for the excellent stewardship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer questions in my own way. If it had not been for the excellent stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should not now have the highest standard of social services, including pensions, that this country has ever known; nor should we have been able to make up some of the shortfalls in pensions for which the Labour Government were responsible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the agreement entered into—

Mr. Faulds: The anti-Christ.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that my message has got across.
In view of the agreement entered into in Dublin yesterday by the Foreign Secretary about the standing of the territorial waters between Great Britain and the Irish Republic, what is now the standing of the territorial waters around Northern Ireland and Rockall? Dublin made it clear last night that those waters were not covered by the agreement. Can the Prime Minister affirm that her Government reject the Dublin claim over those territorial waters and that she will maintain and defend them as British waters?

The Prime Minister: The position on the territorial waters is the same as it was before the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I am aware of no change.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that a decision is expected imminently from the Government on the future of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. on Wearside? In view of her welcome support for the unions at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, will she now take her fur hat to Wearside and express an equivalent solidarity with the workers, the unions and the community there?

The Prime Minister: An announcement will be made about the shipyard in Sunderland when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is ready. He is not yet ready, or he would have made such an announcement. Let me point out that Solidarity is a great deal more than a trade union. As a matter of fact it is not recognised as a legal trade union—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply.

The Prime Minister: It is not recognised as a legal trade union, and obviously it would wish to be.
Solidarity is the only expression of opposition to Communism and Socialism in Poland. Solidarity wishes to have a plural society of the kind that we have, and is very much against the kind of Communism expressed by some people in this country. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that its members did not raise with me in any way the position of the shipyard. They are more concerned to have a plural society and to get their trade union legally recognised.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: As today is the first anniversary of the Enniskillen bombing, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, and as we recall that Private Jason Winter from my constituency was one of those killed in the recent coach bombing, will my right hon. Friend pledge that she and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will continue their excellent work in explaining to the American people and the new Administration what our forces are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The House expressed its sympathy at the time that those brave people were killed in that terrible, atrocious incident. Yes, I will gladly take up my hon. Friend's invitation to try to do my best once again to explain to the people of the United States that our forces

are in Northern Ireland as an aid to the civil power, to see that the rule of law is upheld, that the terrorist does not win, and that the terrorists cannot achieve by bombing and bullet what they cannot achieve by the ballot. It would be terrible if they were able to do that and, if the forces were not there, it would mean that the terrorists had won.

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Prime Minister aware that in this country life expectancy at 65 is now significantly below 21 other comparable countries, including Cuba, Uruguay and Sri Lanka? Does she think that the widespread poverty of a third of our pensioners has anything to do with that? After 10 years, when will her Government do something about it?

The Prime Minister: I saw the report to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring. It is not life expectancy at birth. I think that if he looks into the question of life expectancy at the age of 65, and takes into account life expectancy at birth, he will find a very much better result for this country.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the private notice question yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially the contribution from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? Is it not clear from those exchanges that the Opposition are far less interested in getting extra benefits for those who need them than in making—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not again. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement made yesterday by the Minister of State, Department of Health—that there is no point in further negotiations with the nurses because that would be a continuation of the lobster quadrille—is offensive and disgraceful? Does she not see that the porpoise right behind her and treading on her tail is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has this week led the Government, her, the country and the pensioners a merry dance?

The Prime Minister: It was because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's excellent running of the economy that the nurses were able to have an increase in pay which cost the taxpayer—not the Exchequer—£928 million extra and which gave the nurses an increase in pay in real terms of 45 per cent. more than they had had under a Labour Government.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official enagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the overwhelming vote by the parents of children at St. James' church school in south-east Bolton to opt out of local authority control? Does that not prove that this Government offer the radical policies that the great majority of the people in this country want?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I saw the report in the press this morning of the overwhelming vote by the parents of St. James' school. I think that it is quite clear that most of the parents in this country welcome the extra choice that they have had under my right hon. Friend's policies and wish to be much more involved in their children's education. My hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the final determination on this matter.

Mr. Litherland: How does the Prime Minister summon up the appalling gall to go to Poland to preach freedom and democracy when she is doing exactly the reverse in this country.

The Prime Minister: What absolute nonsense—utter and complete nonsense. What the Opposition cannot stand is that I had such a very warm welcome is all parts of Poland.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE

Mrs. Margaret Ewing, supported by Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. James Molyneaux and Mr. Seamus Mallon presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purpose connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Sam Galbraith presented a Bill to amend section 36 of the Medical Act 1983 to enable the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to exercise greater discretion in respect of conduct which they judge cannot be regarded as acceptable professional conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

Health and Medicines Bill

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that in the House of Commons last week the clause in the Health and Medicines Bill relating to eye tests was carried by a small majority and that that Bill has now gone to the other place. There has been some suggestion that, because of the finances involved in relation to payment for eye tests, the Bill cannot be considered and fully reviewed by the other place in the normal way.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, state categorically that when the Bill first went from this House to the other place it was designated by you as not being a money Bill, and therefore the other place is fully entitled to reject the decision of the House of Commons should it desire to do so? Is it not also correct that it would be possible for the Bill to pass between the two Houses many times? I believe that, for example, what is now the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 passed between the Houses no fewer than eight times. Is it not the case that the other place has complete freedom to reject the decision taken last Tuesday in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I did not certify it as a money Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, during the debate I made a statement about the status of the amendments.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, although the Standing Orders of the House do not refer to Press Gallery or Lobby correspondents, their access to these premises and their behaviour are subject to rules administered by the Sergeant at Arms on your behalf. Those rules are laid down with the intention of protecting the interests of right hon. and hon. Members.
The breach of those rules could lead to the withdrawal of a Lobby or Press Gallery pass, or even action for breach of privilege. Clearly, false, malicious, or wholly inaccurate reporting of events or breaches of confidence are the main wrongs that those rules are intended to prevent. The system of accreditation that has been established through the Serjeant at Arms is intended to provide us all with such protection.
The issue of passes, particularly Lobby passes, gives certain privileges in terms of access to the premises. It also opens up the possibility for accredited Lobby correspondents to be invited by Ministers or others to Lobby briefings. Clearly, any misbehaviour by journalists under the aegis of their Lobby passes could cast doubt on their suitability for accreditation by the Serjeant at Arms.
We understand that last Friday a number of Sunday newspaper Lobby correspondents were invited for an off-the-record briefing by the Chancellor. Without exception, those Lobby correspondents said one particular thing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a matter for me?

Mr. Dobson: I think that it is, Mr. Speaker.
The Lobby correspondents said that the Chancellor was contemplating the idea of means-testing a number of benefits presently universally available to pensioners. Yesterday, in the House, the Chancellor described their articles as a "farrago of invention" and said that the stories bore no relation to what he had said. Clearly that is a very serious charge—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a lot of notes. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Dobson: I also have yesterday's Hansard—these are not all my notes. The fact is that what the Chancellor said in the House yesterday was a serious charge against 10 journalists, which could prejudice their access to the Lobby and to the Press Gallery.
We should normally expect that an off-the-record meeting was literally off the record, but we now understand that, at public expense, it was tape-recorded. In view of the discrepancy between what the Chancellor told the House and what the journalists said that he said, I ask you to look into the matter, to listen to the tape and to clear the matter up one way or the other. It is clear that there are only two choices—either the journalists are unfit to report us from the Gallery, or the Chancellor is unfit to remain in No. 11 Downing street.

Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for order in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for off-the-record briefings held outside this building. No complaint has been made to me by the Lobby.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that if an hon. Member calls another hon. Member a liar, that hon. Member must retract? Further, is it not also a fact that you have ruled on several occasions that the Floor of the House should not be used as a cloak of privilege, in such a way as to enable persons who have no right to reply to be insulted, called liars, cheats, thieves or whatever? Surely it must be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, when the Floor of the Chamber is used by a senior member of Her Majesty's Government to call 10 persons liars—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have never ruled that there can be any rationing of freedom of speech in this place. Either one has freedom of speech, or one does not. I have always warned that hon. Members must use their privilege of freedom of speech with due discretion.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will no doubt recall, although you were not in the House, 25 years ago a Minister resigned because he admitted that he had not told the truth. Yesterday the Chancellor said in the House, about the reports of the meeting:
Oh yes, they will have their shorthand notes and they will know it, and they will know they went behind afterwards and they thought there was not a good enough story and so they produced that."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 26.]
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Robert Harris, the political editor of The Observer, is quoted today in The Times as challenging the Treasury to publicise what had been said at that meeting. Mr. Robert Harris is quoted as saying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What in all this is the point of order for me? There is no point of order. I am not responsible for what Mr. Robert Harris says. He is not a Member of the House.

Mr. Winnick: Mr. Harris said:
It is unfair of the Chancellor to blame distorted reporting … Ten people got exactly the same impression from the briefing.
I should like to ask a simple question: if the Chancellor did not tell the truth, and if the journalists are telling the truth—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not adjudicate on such matters. Every hon. Member must be responsible for what he says in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 you have some responsibility for members of the Press Gallery. To that extent you have a degree of responsibility—albeit not a very happy one—to intervene in this matter. May I make a few suggestions?

Mr. Speaker: As between chairmen, yes.

Mr. Skinner: I shall speak as one chairman to another. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might be able to call the teenage scribblers together and provide us with a list of those who were present at the meeting. You would then be able to inform us, in a briefing capacity, of what took place, and the chances are that we should take your word for it. Finally, will you ensure that you do not take the Chancellor's tape recorder with you?

Mr. Speaker: I shall now take another point of order.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Press Gallery is well-renowned for partisanship and frequent misrepresentation of what actually takes place in Parliament, since it is so easily bought in political terms, and since some of us have the sense to have very little to do with it, would it not be better to clear out the whole damned lot?

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed yesterday that a briefing took place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has now revealed that there is a tape recording of it. Would it be in order for us to ask for the tape recording to be put into the Library, as it is a public tape recording, paid for at Treasury expense? May we ask for it to be put in the Library so that all hon. Members can hear what was said at the briefing? If that is not done, the whole episode will become known as Lawsongate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.
I am not responsible for having tape recordings put in the Library. As the House knows, I cannot be responsible for off-the-record briefings.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether you are prepared to

entertain a motion to exclude the 10 Lobby journalists from the Press Gallery? I should not want to support such a motion, but those who are convinced of the Chancellor's accuracy yesterday would, no doubt, happily vote for it. That would at least give those journalists the opportunity to defend their reputations in public, where they are entitled to defend them.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead of us.

Mr. Dickens: I shall not take long, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Surely the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does not seriously suggest that I should table such a motion. If he wishes to do so, he may.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that you should be put to the test of giving rulings on so many bogus points of order raised by Opposition Members? The Opposition are clearly unhappy that we shall not take away the pensioners' Christmas bonus and that we shall not take money off the pensioners. In fact, they are unhappy that we shall help pensioners more. They cannot beat us in that way, so why do they spend so much time on bogus points of order, which are raised for political purposes?

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that if a Minister refers to a document and quotes from it he has to provide it for the House at a later stage? Is it not the case that the Chancellor referred yesterday to a report in the Treasury Office, and is it not now his duty under that rule to lay the document before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That would be absolutely right had the Chancellor been quoting from a state paper, but I do not think that an off-the-record briefing could be regarded as a state paper.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I said that the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) would be the last one that I would take. This is positively the last one.

Mr. Ewing: My point of order is in the same helpful vein as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Ten days ago, Mr. Speaker, you were rightly very angry with me because I had a copy of the Chancellor's speech and read it a line ahead of the Chancellor. Since then I have lost half a stone in weight getting up and down trying to catch your eye—without any success until today.
On reflection, do you agree that it would be far better if the Chancellor gave me a copy of every speech that he is to make, because when I read his speech he was accurately reported the following day? If I read everything that the Chancellor intended to say a line ahead of him, even the Daily Express would report it accurately.

Mr. Speaker: That was a very good try.

British Rail

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the privatisation of British Rail.
When I tabled the Bill in July, I little imagined that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would make such a robust speech about privatisation at the Conservative party conference. What I seek to do today is to persuade the Government of the best option—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the ten-minute Bill please leave quietly?

Mr. Bennett: British Rail management has much improved some of its activities under the leadership of Bob Reid, but British Rail is still a producer-led monopoly which, all too often, puts the interests of its staff before those of its customers. It is appropriate that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is to oppose the Bill as the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the largest producer union—the National Union of Railwaymen. I seek to speak on behalf of a much larger group—the rail passengers.
British Rail is still conservative and unimaginative. Its marketing is still half-baked. Staff are often slovenly and lack pride in their job and even in their appearance. The catering services are never available when the passenger wants them. Cancellations, delays, dirty stock and overcrowding are still prevalent.
Across the world, Governments are turning to the private sector to help them to operate their railway systems. The biggest example to date is Japan, which privatised its railways last year. The United States has private railways, although its problems of size often give the airlines a competitive edge. In South America, Chile, Brazil and Argentina are to privatise their railways. In the far east, Malaysia and Thailand are to privatise. In Europe, Finland is splitting its train budget into two so that the cost of track is separated from operating costs, and the West German Government are questioning the cost of their railway system.
In the short term, we could privatise station and carriage cleaning, maintenance, train catering, security, portering and other services that could easily be hived off from the main railway operation. We could also set in train a number of experiments. At least three major towns in the United Kingdom are served by lines from two different main line stations in London. Exeter is served by Waterloo and Paddington; Birmingham, by Paddington and Euston; and Cambridge, by Liverpool street and King's Cross. It would be perfectly proper and feasible for different operators to operate services to those three towns. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has already suggested that the service in the Isle of Wight could be hived off to a private operator with no connection with the British Rail system.
In the longer term, privatisation must be predicated on three principles. First, safety must be the paramount concern. Secondly, there must be an improvement for passengers. Thirdly, there must be continued support for rural and social services. I do not believe that British Rail's preferred option is the right one. British Rail proposes to

privatise as a private monopoly. Bearing in mind our experience with British Gas, I do not believe that the customer would want that to happen.
The general principle of privatisation would release British Rail and the railway system from the Treasury-controlled external financing limit. British Rail could then go into the market and seek investment for its own schemes without the concern of the Government. So there are serious competitors ranged against the No. 1 option. We must make sure that British Rail's competition is internal as well as external. I do not accept the board's argument that competition with buses and airlines is enough. We must have internal competition so that British Rail's costs are brought under control and the organisation is made accountable to the passengers.
I therefore propose that a rail authority should be established to ensure conditions of safety and fair play. Below that would be five or six regional infrastructure companies with responsibility for stations, signals and track. These companies should be allowed to run trains so that we can see the competitive costs of different train operations. In addition, there should be a third tier under which operating companies would have a statutory right to operate trains in time slots, which could be allotted. In a minor way, that system exists already. The Orient Express operates on British Rail track; Foster Yeoman operates its own class 59 locomotives and wagons on British Rail track. Productivity levels of those outfits are far higher than those of British Rail's freight operation. Fourteen thousand five hundred freight wagons are already in use.
Safety should be the main responsibility of the regulatory rail authority. The benefits of competition derived from a variety of operators and types of service will be useful to passengers. The railway unions' arguments are so facile that they should be knocked down now. First, they say that trains cannot overtake, but of course they do. Many train timetable systems are organised in flights to maximise capacity. British Rail speeds vary between 35 milies an hour for freight pick-up to 125 miles an hour on Intercity, and fast and slow trains run on the same track with overtaking loops, fast tracks through stations and two-track signal lines by directional working. So, already, the possibility exists of running trains with different operators at different speeds. With timetable computerisation and inter-regional working provided through an attractive financial package, competition will be maximised by market forces.
What about breakdowns? At the moment, there is no redress from British Rail if a train breaks down. Passengers grin and bear it. Commercial operators have some form of redress in the form of financial claims against the railway system. The third tier option with different operators will ensure that the service is better by providing for financial penalties against operators who do not run their trains efficiently.
Finally, I turn to rural and social routes. We need proper costing of wear on tracks. We must abolish the public service obligation grants and replace them with line service grants with central and local government input. That is what we have done with the bus system— subsidised the service, not the system. Let us ensure that public money goes to the services that the public judge to be in need of social subsidy.
My Bill seeks to place the passengers first and to give them a service comparable with that of Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury, rather than the sort of service that they have had to endure for the past 40 years.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Snape: Yes, Sir.
As a member of the National Union of Railwaymen I may say that I have never heard so much claptrap in all my life. So much of the case for rail privatisation has a quaint, antiquated, back-to-the-future quality about it.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) propounded a track authority approach to privatisation, a line of argument usually associated with the Adam Smith Institute. There is a name to conjure with—that of a man who was born in 1723 and died in 1790, before railways were even invented. How did he manage to pass on these gems to the hon. Member for Pembroke?
The Centre for Policy Studies, a group of Right-wing teenage ideologues, has issued its report on privatisation, "Reviving the Railways", subtitled "A Victorian Future", which is a fantasy of recreating not only the four pre-1947 companies but of going further back into the past to pre-1923, when there were almost 150 railway companies. We have been there before. It did not work then, and will not work now. What is the great and glorious past to which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to return? In the 10 years before the second world war, three of the four private railway companies never paid a dividend of more than 1 per cent. on ordinary shares. Even the Great Western Railway rarely paid a dividend of more than 3 per cent.

Mr. Bennett: What does that have to do with it?

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman will shut up, I shall tell him.
Under the present Government, Intercity services are supposed to bring a return of 2·7 per cent.—hardly the kind of figure to attract those lager-swilling yuppies from the City about whom we read so much. The returns of the 1920s and 1930s are also fairly pathetic when compared with the results now sought by the City of London.
As to the so-called golden age of efficiency and competition in the 1920s and 1930s, when the free market gave us service with a smile, it is interesting to draw comparisons with one or two modern routes. In 1938, there were 26 trains a day between Bournemouth and London. There are currently 64. In 1938, the fastest journey time on that route was 116 minutes. Today it is 96 minutes.
It is true that in 1938 there were two competing railway companies on the London to Birmingham route, when there were 22 trains running daily. Some left from Euston and others from Paddington. However, they did not operate on a fixed frequency. If one missed the train from Euston, one also missed the train from Paddington. That was because, at least in theory, they were competing against each other. Today, 33 trains run daily between London and Birmingham. In 1938, the fastest journey time

was 1 hour 55 minutes, whereas today, not counting the Pullman, it is 1 hour 32 minutes. That is a significant improvement.
If one considers the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of Pembroke, it is difficult to imagine too many City whizzkids being anxious to run a service to that far-flung outpost. Had the hon. Gentleman propounded his childish and infantile ideas in his own constituency on a Sunday in 1938, it would have taken him 9 hours 22 minutes to return to London—some might think, a good thing too. In 1988, he can be back in London boring the rest of us in only 6 hours 19 minutes. That is not bad for a nationalised railway in 50 years. The truth is that the golden age of railways never existed—particularly in the 1930s.
No one should be in any doubt about the positive achievements of the publicly owned rail system—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke, having made his own case, will have the courtesy to listen to my reply. He did not make his case very well, and I am trying to speak slowly because I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot think very quickly.
Today, the railway carries more passengers than at any time in the 1920s, when private car ownership became a reality. Today's railway system carries its passengers faster and—provided one can get a seat, which is not always possible—at a higher standard of comfort than ever before. Also, it costs the Exchequer far less than it costs the Governments of any of our European neighbours to run their passenger rail services.
It is significant that, after 10 years of Conservative Government and of being told by them how well British Rail management is running its services, we are now informed by the hon. Member for Pembroke that those services are dirty and unpunctual. Some of them are, and I myself have been known to complain about them. However, there is nothing wrong with British Rail that proper funding would not put right; anybody who cares about the future of our national rail system knows that to be so.
The track authority concept to which the hon. Gentleman referred is also, in railway terms, a non-starter. There are, I suppose, some rather lucrative pieces of real estate around British Rail stations and tracks. The track authority would rent out space for competing services run by private operating companies. Anyone with a shred of knowledge about operating practices would know just how impracticable is that idea.
If there is an up line and a down line between two cities, and a train full of proles run by one company comes to a standstill on the up line, it is no use the champagne swiggers on the Orient Express behind trying to overtake—it is not possible on a two-track railway. Unlike bus deregulation, one cannot cut short the route, jump the traffic lights, or miss out passengers standing at a bus stop in order to beat one's competitors. Fortunately, there are safety standards which guarantee that few railway passengers lose their lives in the course of a year compared with the 5,000 or so people who are killed on Britain's roads.
The hon. Gentleman has palpably failed to prove his case. He has, predictably for him, not listened to the alternative because he is too busy involved in conversation with his hon. Friends. One would have thought that such a passionate advocate of the free market had come from nowhere to the top of a major publicly quoted company;


that he started as the office boy and ended up as the chairman. As a matter of fact, according to "Who's Who", before he came here the hon. Gentleman was a school-teacher, after which he became a full-time bureaucrat—I hesitate to use that word, although that is the sort of language that Conservative Members use—with the Inner London education authority in one of the London boroughs. Far from exposing himself to an icy bath full of private enterprise water, he has had rather a comfortable existence in the municipal sector.
I have some advice for the hon. Gentleman as a result of listening to him this afternoon. I shall buy him a junior engine spotter's notebook so that he can discover something about the railway system by travelling around a bit. When he comes back and gets a bit bigger I shall even get him a ride on an engine, providing that he can prove that he has learnt something about the railway system.
The trouble with those infants on the Conservative Benches is that they know nothing and care even less about the passengers or those who work within the railway industry. Those Conservative Members who do—I know that there are some—should join me and my hon. Friends in voting against this silly and childish motion this afternoon.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 109,Noes 184.

Division No. 476]
[4.01 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus





Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Miss Ann Widdecombe and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. David Davis.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the debate begins, can I seek your guidance on a matter of deep concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House? You, Mr. Speaker, will have studied the draft order before us, and you will agree that it is a document of very great importance and of the most far-reaching significance for the administration of justice in the Province. Yet the Government have chosen to introduce that important piece of legislation not by means of a Bill, but by means of an Order in Council, which is unamendable.
It is enormously difficult for hon. Members who take an interest in the administration of justice in the Province to debate a proposed change of legislation without the possibility of the proposed legislation being considered in Committee and on Report. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for having allowed a long time for us to debate the order, but that is no substitute for being able to move amendments and for those amendments being considered by the Minister in charge of the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any reason why the Government could not have proceeded with the legislation by the conventional Bill procedure, although it is correct that the order applies only to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know that it is for me to say whether other methods might have been used. My concern in studying the Order Paper is to ensure that what is on it is in order. This procedure is in order. I often hear such complaints during debates on Northern Ireland orders, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should make his point during the debate.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 20 October 1988, be approved.
I entirely understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) raised that point of order. The House knows that it is in order to introduce an order in this form, because the provisions apply to the general criminal law in Northern Ireland and that is a reserved matter as defined in schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. In the absence of any proposals for devolution, provision can be made by Order in Council subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I am conscious of the reservations of many right hon. and hon. Members about that procedure, and I certainly would be willing to sit down with them and discuss the ways in which we proceed with legislation, and particularly to discuss with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, and other parties in the House, whether there are ways in which procedure might be improved.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: No. I have sought to respond honourably to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), and I should get on.
In view of some of the reporting of this issue I must make it clear straight away that the purpose of the draft


order is not in any way to remove the so-called right of silence of suspects questioned by the police or of defendants in court. Nothing in the draft order will oblige an accused to make a statement, nor is there any suggestion that silence should be an offence. As I shall explain, the purpose of this draft order is to allow the courts in certain carefully defined circumstances to draw such inferences as would be proper from an accused's silence.

Mr. Budgen: Before my right hon. Friend goes into detail, will he please tell the House whether any disadvantage would be suffered if he were to adopt the Bill procedure for this measure?

Mr. King: This procedure has been followed in the past for matters affecting the general criminal law. I sought to respond as positively as I could to the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. I have nothing to add to my comments.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I sought to respond to a point of order that was not for the Chair, and I hoped that the House would find my comments helpful. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was generous enough to say that we have some time, we do not have limitless time and I should like to make some progress.
For some time the Government have been reviewing the law on criminal evidence in Northern Ireland in the light of the grave challenge from continuing terrorist violence and from other serious crime, particularly racketeering. They have had before them a formidable body of persuasive evidence for change, including the acknowledged difficulties faced by the police and the prosecuting authorities in bringing to justice hardened, professional criminals—often assisted by able legal advisers—who are thoroughly trained in resisting police questioning, and in the case of terrorists, who even publish in their news-sheets detailed instructions on techniques for resisting questioning under the heading, "Whatever you say, say nothing". That is a measure of the importance attached to silence by those who are engaged in a sustained and systematic assault on the rule of law and the institutions of our democracy. These practices are now widely recognised and imitated throughout the criminal elements in Northern Ireland.
At present the law in Northern Ireland—as in England and Wales—precludes a trial judge from suggesting to the jury that an adverse inference may be drawn from the fact that an accused chose to remain silent when questioned by the police, or in a Diplock court, where there is no jury, the effect is that the judge must direct himself that he may not draw inferences from the accused's silence. That is so, even if the circumstances were such that an innocent person might reasonably have been expected to proclaim his innocence and draw attention to facts which served to establish it. Whether that should be so has long been the subject of a debate which has sharply divided the legal profession.
The Government were impressed by the arguments and recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision

Committee in its 11th report in 1972 that in certain carefully defined circumstances it should be permissible for a court to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence during questioning. In many—though not all— cases it is surely reasonable to expect that an innocent man will wish to proclaim his innocence and to co-operate with the police by answering questions, and most laymen would regard a complete refusal to answer questions as suggestive of guilt.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose—

Mr. King: I emphasise that in no sense would it even now, if the draft order is approved, become mandatory to draw any inference, but only if the court or a jury, properly directed by the trial judge, deemed it proper to do so.

Mr. John Morris: So that the House will understand what the procedure will be, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the words of the caution that the police constable will now give?

Mr. King: I cannot give that advice. The draft has been prepared and is being considered. Clearly, it will be necessary for that to be approved and agreed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, it will be in a form that will satisfy the courts.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: It may be more helpful if I take one intervention at a time.
In the Government's view there is much force in the CLRC's argument that the present law hands an unnecessary advantage to the hardened criminal who uses it to refuse to answer any questions and thus to bring police investigations to a halt. I am aware that these issues have been much discussed, that the CLRC recommendations aroused some strong opposition and that recently the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, by a majority, rejected introducing measures to allow courts to draw inferences from silence.
However, the law on criminal evidence should not be artificial and surely it is desirable that all relevant evidence should be admitted—as the CLRC recognised. The object of a criminal trial is to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. While the innocent should always be acquitted, it is also important that the guilty be convicted.
The Government believe, therefore, that the arguments against change are overstated and that the CLRC's arguments are stronger, full of common sense and significantly reinforced by the deliberate and extreme exploitation of the present position. If right hon. and hon. Members refresh their memories on the Royal Commission's analysis, they will see that it was based on a study showing that few people made use of the right to silence. About 4 per cent. refused to answer any questions. Anybody with any knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that in Northern Ireland the figure is very different.
In that context, the Government took note of the law in the Republic of Ireland, which was changed by the Irish Parliament in 1984 by the enactment of sections 18 and 19 of its Criminal Justice Act 1984, permitting the courts in the Republic to draw adverse inferences in certain specified circumstances from the fact that an accused had remained silent when questioned by the police.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In the interests of accuracy, should not the Secretary of State point out the four areas in which the order differs from that which pertains in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. King: I will spell out the details of the order and that will become apparent.
We have now reviewed a wide range of evidence and the Government propose, through the draft order, that the general criminal law in Northern Ireland should be amended to permit the courts in four circumstances to draw whatever inferences would be proper from the fact that an accused remained silent. Two are dealt with by provisions that have the same effect as two provisions recommended by the CLRC. The first is the "ambush", where, having remained silent during police questioning, the accused offers an explanation of his conduct for the first time at his trial when he might reasonably have been expected to offer it when being questioned.
The second provides that, if the prosecution can establish that there is a case to answer, the accused must be warned that he will be called to give evidence and that if he should refuse to do so, the court may draw such inferences as would appear proper.
The other two provisions have the same effect as sections 18 and 19 of the Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984. One allows the court to draw such inferences as would appear proper from an accused's failure or refusal to explain to the police certain specified facts such as substances or marks on his clothing. The other makes similar provision where an accused fails or refuses to account to the police for his presence at a particular place.
Before I explain the content of the articles in the draft order, it is worth remembering that the changes will operate against the background of the established protection for a suspect's rights in police custody in Northern Ireland and that we have in hand proposals further to enhance those rights. For those detained under the terrorism provisions, part 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 provides comprehensive protection for the rights of suspects while in police custody. Under those provisions a person has a right to have someone informed that he is being detained, where he is being held, and a statutory right to consult a solicitor. In both cases the police are obliged to inform the person of his rights. Similar provisions will be proposed for persons suspected of non-terrorist offences when the Government shortly lay before Parliament a draft police and criminal evidence order, for which a proposal has been out for consultation during recent months.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can the Secretary of State inform the House of the number of occasions when an application for a solicitor has been refused?

Mr. King: I need to check the details. I shall look into that and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be anxious to reply.
Article 1 brings articles 2 and 4 into operation on the seventh day after the order is made. The remaining provisions of the order will come into operation on the expiration of one month from the day on which the order is made. The delay of one month is necessary to ensure that police instructions can be implemented on the need to warn suspects of the implications of their failure to explain material facts when questioned.

Mr. Duffy: Before those articles become operative, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the automatic reporting of police interrogations will be universally available?

Mr. King: By "automa tic reporting" does the hon. Gentleman mean tape recording?

Mr. Duffy: Yes.

Mr. King: The police and criminal evidence order, which is out for consultation, covers that and it is intended to introduce it, but not for terrorism cases. Hon. Members may smile, but anyone who has studied the issue knows that there is a real problem. The greatest evil is the evil of terrorism and the intimidation and threats that go with it, and people must be aware of the difficulties involved in interrogation and intelligence if we record such cases. I am certainly keen to see that, and it is intended to introduce it. It is in the order, which the hon. Gentleman may have studied.
Article 2 deals with the interpretation of expressions used in the order. I draw the special attention of the House to articles 2(4) and (5) because they make clear on the face of the draft order that no one can be convicted under any of these provisions solely on inferences drawn from his silence.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the provision in article 2(4). That article says that in deciding whether there is a case to answer, a court shall not draw the inference set out in article 3. Article 3(2) says:
Where this paragraph applies—
(a) the court, in determining whether to commit the accused … or whether there is a case to answer; may—
(i) draw such inferences".
On the face of it, are those two provisions not inconsistent?

Mr. King: On the face of it, I do not think that they are, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and I do not want to tangle with him. Fortunately, I have brought some supporting arms in the shape of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Later, perhaps he will be kind enough to engage in an interesting legal exercise. As I say, on first reading I do not think that the articles are inconsistent, but I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), bearing in mind his previous activities, and I shall look carefully at the point that he raises.
Article 3, which has the same effect as draft clause 1 of the Criminal Law Review Committee's recommendations, substantially abolishes the rule of evidence that, if the accused relies in his defence on some fact that he failed to mention when questioned or charged, the court or jury may not draw inferences from the failure and may not treat this failure as corroboration of the evidence against him. Article 4 has the same effect as draft clause 5.

Mr. Gow: Before my right hon. Friend leaves article 3, may I ask him if he is asking the House to approve this order after a debate of a maximum of four and a half hours, without telling the House the words that will be contained in the caution given to a suspect?

Mr. King: As I said before, a draft caution has been produced and is being considered by the Lord Chief Justice. Of course it will be necessary for the caution to comply with the terms of the order. If it does not comply


with those terms—I bow to such advice as I might receive —my understanding is that it would not be a valid caution. It will be necessary for the court to be satisfied that the caution properly reflects the terms, conditions and circumstances faced by an accused under this order. That is my understanding of the matter.
As I said, article 4 has the same effect as draft clause 5. If, at the trial of the accused, the court considers that there is a case for him to answer, then, subject to certain exceptions, the court must at the appropriate time call on him to give evidence. If he refuses to do so or if he refuses without good cause to answer any question, the court or jury may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper, and may also treat such a refusal as corroboration of any evidence against the accused.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. King: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. Interventions tend to break the thread of the argument.
Article 5 which has the same effect as section 18 of then Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984, provides that a court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper where an accused fails to account to a constable for some specified fact such as a mark on his person or clothing or the condition of his clothing or footwear. There is a safeguard that such inferences can be drawn only if the accused was told in ordinary language by the arresting constable what the effect of failure or refusal might be.
Finally, article 6 has the same effect as section 19 of the Irish legislation. It makes similar provisions to the previous article about the inferences that may be drawn from a failure or refusal by an accused when arrested by a constable to account for his presence at a particular place at or about the time when the offence was committed.
The proposals in the order have been brought forward only after the most careful consideration by me, my Department and the Government of a subject that has been debated exhaustively over the last 16 years. In his statement on 20 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear that he also intends at the earliest opportunity to bring forward legislation on this matter for England and Wales, but it is right that we should act now in Northern Ireland to restore the balance of justice there.
Anyone who knows anything about the present situation in Northern Ireland and about the challenge that is faced by the police and the prosecuting authorities whose very lives are at risk as they discharge their responsibilities to protect the community, will know about the deep sense of concern and frustration felt by all decent people in Northern Ireland. They are concerned and frustrated because they know that the absolute refusal by many people to answer questions cannot be taken into account by a court.
I was asked whether I have any figures. The RUC informs me that of all those detained for questioning in connection with serious crimes, including terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, just under half refuse to answer any substantive question while in police custody. Many of those people will not answer any questions. It is quite clear that in too many cases justice is being thwarted, and this must be remedied as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there any evidence to suggest—and this may well be the case—that those who refuse to answer questions are more likely to be aquitted than those who answer questions?

Mr. King: There is considerable evidence to show that justice is being thwarted. I do not think that it is any secret that many people about whom there are grave doubts and the gravest suspicions are not brought to justice. It is a matter of balance. In discharging my responsibilities I have to take into account the fact that the whole system of justice in Northern Ireland is under attack. I have here a list of magistrates and judges who have been injured or murdered. The list takes no account of the previous intimidation of juries or of the intimidation and murder of witnesses. That list is the most visible evidence of the attack on the system of justice in Northern Ireland and the holder of my office can neither remain ignorant of that attack nor disinterested in it.
We also know that there is a calculated campaign to frustrate the course of justice, not least through the advertised campaigns of instruction about how to frustrate police questioning. Earlier I mentioned the slogan, "Whatever you say, say nothing". That has permeated right through terrorist crime into racketeering, gang-type activities and general criminal activities. Faced with that, and with the need to maintain the balance of justice and the protections of which this House, of all places, is jealous, I would dare to presume, in front of a number of distinguished lawyers facing me, as well as those behind me, that one needs and is entitled, and the House has a duty, to keep that law under review and to see that the balance is correctly maintained in the face of this calculated and determined attack. I am standing here now because I believe that this is a time when that balance has to be redressed, and when we have to consider whether there is a case for making modest changes.
As I said at the start of my speech, in no sense is this an attack on the right to silence in the sense of people being compelled to speak. Under the serious fraud legislation, it can be a contempt if people refuse to give evidence, but there is no such requirement in this order. In four limited areas, we are proposing to move from the situation in which there is an absolute prohibition on a judge or jury drawing any conclusion from silence. I think that many people would think that we were mad if, in certain circumstances, when the law is deliberately exploited by a number of clearly guilty men who are among others who may face the courts, we were to say that there should be no opportunity for the courts to draw any inference.
This is a limited measure and I could be criticised for not going further. As I emphasised earlier, it will not be mandatory for the courts or for a jury as properly instructed by a judge to draw any inference. They will have, if they think it proper and if, in the case of a jury, they are properly directed by a judge, the opportunity to take this into account. The House owes it to the people who seek to maintain a system of justice against all the provocation, the dangers and the difficulties, at least to allow this modest change in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he might bear in mind that there are no greater opponents of terrorism than I and my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for


Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). All three of us are loyal supporters of the Union, but have a clear feeling of unease about the way in which, and the haste with which, the order has been brought into the House. In view of the perfectly sensible questions about, for example, the caution, is there not time for some reflection and further discussion about this matter before it is put to the vote?

Mr. King: I think it right to bring this order before the House tonight, and that is why I am standing here now. I sought earlier to cover some of the points that my hon. Friend made. This is not a new subject. My hon. Friend is familiar with Northern Ireland, and knows that this is a matter that anybody spending any time discussing the situation in Northern Ireland and visiting the Province will find raised as an issue on which there are strong feelings. Against that background, while I am under no illusions that this is some panacea for the problems of securing a better balance in convictions and in seeing that justice is done, I believe that these are sensible and necessary measures to take. They have struck the right balance between the proper interests of people facing charges in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend allow me to finish?
They strike the right balance. They are modest but important changes. They are not changes that innocent people need fear, but they at last restore something to, and will help maintain, the balance of a system of justice that is under threat, to the benefit of all the people in the Province.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: These modest changes are only on a par with Dean Swift's modest proposals. It is not right to say that juries do not draw an inference from silence and by the accused not going into the witness box, whether the judge draws attention to it or not. Juries are not idiots and they draw inferences.
It is with a sense of sadness that I reply to the Secretary of State, because, despite all the warnings, despite all the evidence of the past 20 years, despite his own knowledge of the realities of the conflict in Northern Ireland, he has fallen into a pattern that we have witnessed all too often. A new Secretary of State approaches his office with hopes for the future and a commitment to reform. He becomes disappointed at the slow pace of progress and then resorts to simplistic and repressive solutions. The Secretary of State has failed to recognise that, to the extent that reform has failed, the main responsibility lies with the Government's half-hearted pursuit of that objective.
The Secretary of State appears to have abandoned the long-term strategy of the Anglo-Irish Agreement for a short term, short-sighted attempt to keep the lid on the conflict. Once again, the Province is suffering from the inability of its rulers to appreciate the complexities of its problems. This order epitomises the politics of despair, and despair is always dangerous, particularly in politics. It is, after all, the only sin that cannot be forgiven; that is why the Labour party opposes the measures, both for its simpleness and because it implements the politics of despair.
We oppose the order because it reveals the political bankruptcy of the Government and because it represents

such a transformation of the legal system that no one who believes in the liberty of the citizen can support it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will rightly point out that terrorism itself violates the rights of the individual. It does, but that is why the state must go out of its way to maintain civil liberties. The paramilitaries cannot be defeated through methods that are incompatible with the existence of democracy. Unless the state enjoys a moral status incomparably superior to that of its armed opponents, it cannot triumph. Otherwise, it relies on the argument that might is right, and that is the essence of the paramilitary case.
If there is no difference between the state and the paramilitaries in terms of means, one would have to choose whom to support on the basis of ends alone. It is self-evident that the legitimacy of the lawful authorities would be seriously undermined if that were the case. While the House is not neutral in the conflict, the unpalatable reality is that large sections of the population in Northern Ireland are neutral about the security forces and the paramilitaries of either community. These are the people who supported the institutions of Government, and their support must be won if the conflict is to end, but the order will reinforce those people in their distrust.

Mr. Marlow: The public perception is that the end that the Labour party supports is that of a united Ireland, and when the Government introduce means to frustrate terrorism, then the Opposition always seem to oppose them. The public is perfectly clear about what the Opposition are trying to do.

Mr. McNamara: To combat terrorism, we shall support any proper means under the rule of law which we believe would be effective. The problem is that the Government are continually introducing methods that are not effective, as I shall seek to demonstrate.
This is evident when one considers the logic behind this measure. The order stems from a state of mind in which the militarisation of the judicial process becomes a legitimate tactic. Such an approach neglects the damage inflicted on the credibility and effectiveness of that process. In that sense, the order is a victory for those it purports to undermine.
The order is fundamentally flawed because the Government assume that an extremely complex political problem can be resolved merely through changes in the legal system. They assume that the opposition to the present institutions in Northern Ireland and the alienation from democratic politics can be overcome merely by coercion. We do not accept that. The Government have issued the wrong prescription because they have falsely diagnosed the problem. They justify the order by the need to facilitate the work of the police and the courts when dealing with highly trained paramilitaries. The Labour party supports measures which, under the rule of law, effectively combat the paramilitary threat, but this order does not do so.
It is not the co-operation of the paramilitaries in an interrogation chamber which is significant, it is the fact that tens of thousands of ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland do not co-operate with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is the problem, and it cannot be changed by negative initiatives of this sort. It will change only when the institutions in Northern Ireland, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, become more acceptable


throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. Far from doing anything to inspire greater confidence in the police and the judiciary, the order will bring them into further disrepute. The Government, having abandoned the hope of winning consent, are resorting to coercion. That is a pattern all too obvious in the history of Britain's dealings with Ireland.
One of the major steps in the establishment of our civil liberties came in 1568 in the decision by the Court of Common Pleas to release a prisoner jailed for refusing to answer questions put to him by a trial judge. The threat to the security of the kingdom at that time was far more severe than anything we face today. Similarly, the 1640s —when the right to silence became fully established—was a period of great domestic and international upheaval, but it was precisely at those moments of stress and threat that the importance of civil liberty was recognised. The kingdom survived and grew in strength and authority because of the extension of rights and freedoms, not in spite of them.
Those historical lessons are now being thrown overboard by an arrogant Government who have lost faith in their ability to reconcile law with order.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so courteously, when the Secretary of State repeatedly failed to give way to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue does not just concern the right to silence? This is the first step on the road to compelling people to give evidence in court on oath. That is the subtle difference. When a court calls upon a person to give evidence under article 5 in this charter, it calls upon a person to give evidence on oath. That flies in the face of our basic system and of the principles regarding the burden of proof.

Mr. McNamara: I shall deal later with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Earl Warren, the famous chief justice of the American supreme court, put the case nicely when he said:
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means … would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face.
It is against this pernicious order that the House should set its face.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. McNamara: It is obvious from the Government's behaviour that they are embarrassed about the steps that they are proposing and that they are not convinced of either their propriety or efficacy. The order bears the obvious signs of being a rushed measure, both in terms of the dubious reasoning put forward by the Government and in the drafting of the order. The Government's case is severely flawed both in terms of logic and honesty. The Secretary of State justifies the order by reference to the difficulties involved in dealing with paramilitaries and racketeers, yet he proposes this extension throughout the whole of the criminal justice system and does not confine it merely to emergency legislation.
At the same time, having observed the Northern Ireland experience, the Home Secretary has announced his intention to introduce similar legislation for England and Wales.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here at the start of the debate; if he had been, I would have given way to him.
All the while, the Prime Minister appears to believe that this is merely a temporary restriction of civil liberties. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the order is justified by reference to the specific difficulties of Northern Ireland—in which case it is unclear what relevance the order has to ordinary crime in England and Wales—or the Government have ulterior motives for taking away a fundamental civil right from everyone. The latter interpretation is the most plausible.
The Government have rested their case on selective and subjective grounds for what is a radical change in the criminal law. I attempted to secure answers about the evidence upon which the Government are taking action. My questions have all met with the same response:
Records are not maintained in the form which would permit the hon. Gentleman's question to be answered.
In effect, the Government have informed me that they do not know the answers or are not prepared to publish the evidence, so that we can look at what the police and the judiciary are saying. If the Government are not prepared to do that, we are not prepared to accept the order.
Similarly, the Government carefully resurrect the 16-year-old recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. They do not tell us how bitterly criticised that report was. Some of the more polite descriptions were "ill-fated", "notorious" or "fatally flawed", and the report was not implemented because it contained no evidence to justify the proposed changes.
Having resurrected that 16-year-old report, the Government appear to have buried the 1981 report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. The commission rejected the abolition of the right to silence. The commission has suddenly been censored out of existence, although the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was based on it. Why, then, this selective amnesia? The answer is simple: the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have once again subordinated the facts and the reality to the Prime Minister's prejudices.
To justify the order, the Government are making use of the police force in a scandalous manner. For short-term gain, the Government are threatening the hard-won independence of the police and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The credibility of a police force depends on its being seen to remain outside partisan politics, a difficult enough task in Northern Ireland. The Government are dragging in a crude attempt to mobilise the police for their own political ends.
The Government's case depends purely on anecdotal evidence from the police and the judiciary. They refuse to publish the representations made by the police and the judiciary. No serious research exists which would support the Government's claims. There is no evidence that the right to silence assists defendants, but, by dragging the police and the judiciary into the political fray, the Government are trying to establish a case at the expense of public confidence in the police, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the Northern Irish bench.
It is quite easy to see the emptiness of the Government's case. The Government argue that people whom the police believe to be guilty either cannot be charged or, once charged, are acquitted by the courts because of the right to


silence. Of course the police believe this to be the case—it would be extraordinary if the police were to arrest people they believed to be innocent or to charge those whom they believed to be innocent—but it is precisely for that reason that the investigation of crime and the trial are separate and distinct procedures. The purpose of the trial is to determine the validity or otherwise of the police case. I do not think that any rational police officer would wish that to be otherwise.
The Government's selective presentation of the facts to support their case gives way to downright dishonesty when they seek to draw parallels with the criminal procedure of the Republic of Ireland. I would welcome the Government's new-found commitment to harmonisation of policies in the two parts of Ireland, if it were sincere and complete. When, for instance, will three-judge hearings be introduced in the Diplock courts? When will we see harmonisation in a broad range of policy areas regarding security, which is vital if we are to reduce the divisions within Northern Ireland and between the North and the South? We look forward to those measures, but the Government have not yet introduced them. However, with regard to calling in aid the legislation of the Republic, the unfortunate truth is that the measures in this order have little in common with the practice in the Republic.
The abolition of the right to silence at trial was not even considered by the Irish Government. It is true that they proposed to admit the drawing of inferences from silence in the pre-trial phase, but that was rejected by the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament. The similarities that exist are more apparent than real because of the disquiet that is felt by the Irish judiciary, which has refused to draw such inferences at trials. In an effort to find a case for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the Government's propaganda machine has presented a travesty of the truth. They are not content with introducing their proposals by the back door, for they are attempting to justify them in a dishonest manner. The Irish experience refutes the Secretary of State's case rather than supporting it.

Mr. Harold McCusker: My intervention might be of assistance to the Secretary of State. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the caution is in the Irish Republic on this issue?

Mr. McNamara: No, I cannot. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to help the Secretary of State. I am pleased about that, for it is the first piece of assistance that the Secretary of State has had from the hon. Gentleman since the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Presumably the purpose of this apparent dishonesty and the misleading of the House is for the "benefit" of the House and international community. Northern Ireland is an issue that has steadily become international, and the Government's efforts to campaign against the MacBride principles in the United States reflect this awareness. At the moment when the American people are exercising their democratic rights, the Government are adopting measures that inspire a great deal of hostility towards Britain in the United States and throughout the world.
Last week, the House voted to violate the first amendment of the American constitution, which is the freedom of the press. Tonight, as America votes for a president, we are undermining the fifth amendment, which is the right not to incriminate oneself. The case for the

paramilitarists in Northern Ireland could not have been better put than by the introduction of the measures that are before us.
These issues arouse the fury of Irish-Americans and of all citizens within that country. A British citizen wrote to me from California in these terms:
Many thoughtful Americans are deeply shocked that the British Government should contemplate the abolition of our own equivalent of the fifth amendment. Traditionally, Britain has enjoyed an enviable reputation in the world as a champion of civil liberties, but the present Government seem to care nothing for this. Mrs. Thatcher and her Ministers appear to be totally insensitive to irreparable damage that they are doing to our international reputation as a freedom-loving country.
Thus the Government, by their own actions, have made life far more difficult for those American leaders who attempt to play a constructive and educational role over the question of Northern Ireland and have strengthened the hands of those in North America who are apologists for violence.
The Secretary of State has attempted to present the order as one that introduces relatively limited changes in the criminal law. He described it as a "modest proposal". That is not so. We are being asked to overturn one of the pillars of the British system of justice. The Secretary of State is being disingenuous when he says that the proposed changes are relatively minor. They are not. They represent a dramatic and drastic move away from our adversarial system to an inquisitorial system.
In some ways, the debate is hindered by the use of the term "the right to silence". The law states that the prosecution must prove the guilt of a defendant beyond reasonable doubt and without the assistance of the defendant. That principle is based on three assumptions. First, it is presumed that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. Secondly, it is recognised that proving a negative is often impossible. Thirdly, confessions are admissible only if given voluntarily. The order violates all these axioms of the criminal law.
The onus of proof is being placed upon the defendant. A suspect, often without legal advice, or without any clear knowledge of what he or she is suspected of having done, will be required to demonstrate innocence. There is a presumption that reasonable suspicion can be equated with guilt. Particularly worrying is the requirement to prove a negative. This affects both the general issue of innocence and the specific case of the so-called ambush defence. Suspects will be required to mention any fact that may be used in their future defence.
It is possible to be reasonably sure that a suspect imparted certain information, but one cannot be so certain that a suspect did not do so. It is one thing to tape-record an interview in a police station—in the majority of cases that we are considering in Northern Ireland, which will be scheduled cases or terrorist cases, that will not be the position—and another to keep records of what happens outside the police station. Who is to decide what constitutes a relevant fact, to decide which apparently minor detail may later take on a great deal of significance? This is a form of retroactive punishment, where the absence of foresight will be penalised in the trial procedure.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman realises that there has already been a breach of that principle in the requirement in United Kingdom law for notice of alibi to be given. If a defendant chooses to


raise an alibi defence, notice must be given to the prosecution by the defence so that such a defence cannot be raised at the trial without the prosecution having the opportunity to study and check that defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his mind to whether that which is proposed is merely a continuation of that breach or something fundamentally different.

Mr. McNamara: I think that it is fundamentally different, for the reason that I shall advance. I do not object to the requirement that notice of alibi must be given to the prosecution, but that is not what will happen under the order.
No confession can be regarded as voluntary once the order is in force. Voluntary confessions imply that one has the right not to talk. If we take that right away, every confession, as a matter of logic, becomes involuntary. It is quite obvious that the order involves a degree of coercion on the suspect or the accused. The order will provide more work for lawyers, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and, unfortunately for Britain's reputation, the European Court of Human Rights. It will needlessly complicate the law of evidence and embroil the courts in what is ultimately political conflict.
I return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who represents the posh end of Merseyside. I think that he is right when he talks about ambushes and giving notice of alibis, but that is not the purpose of the order as it has been drafted. That does not bear on the way on which involuntary confessions will come out, as it were. We are dealing with a form of coercion. If someone does not say something, that fact will be noted and reference will be made to it.
Those who wish to introduce an ambush alibi will not be prevented from taking that course. Those who choose not to remain silent—for example, hardened terrorists—will have their alibis prepared. They will have Sammy Wilson in a pub on the Shankill. Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words, for I was not referring to the lord mayor. As I was saying, they will have Sammy Taylor in a pub in the Shankill or Seamus O'Keane in the Falls, ready to swear that someone was somewhere else when the time came. The paramilitarist will not be affected in any way. In other words, the order will not affect them.
We cannot consider the order without reference to the existing criminal law in Northern Ireland and to the changes that are proposed in the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice) Order 1988. The police have already been granted extensive powers in the emergency legislation. These powers have been recognised as resulting from the conflict in Northern Ireland, powers which would not be on the statute book otherwise. We must therefore think carefully before adding to the many provisions which already exist within the emergency powers. Extension of police powers in the past has not ended the conflict, and it is unlikely that it will do so in future. It is unlikely that the balance that the Secretary of State is looking for in the courts will be restored, if it needs to be.
It is already an offence to withhold information about terrorist activities, under section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984. Much concern has been expressed about the relationship between the order and section 11, not least by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. It seems

that it believes that the combination of the two would provide an incentive for a modified version of the discredited supergrass system.
There can be no short cuts in the fight against crime. Investigation and the careful accumulation of evidence must be the basis of policing in Northern Ireland. Such an extension of police powers will only make investigation more difficult, as it undermines the credibility of the criminal law and of the police.
The Government have attempted to justify the measure by arguing that the right to silence was introduced to defend the individual against the arbitrary use of power in a despotism. Now the Secretary of State has said that, given the safeguards in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and easy access to legal advice, the proposals for non-paramiltary offences in the draft order are no longer necessary. Once again, he is being misleading.
In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the police have no statutory duty to inform a suspect of his rights. More important, since the commencement of the Emergency Provisions Act in June 1987, the statutory right to access to legal advice has been severely qualified. Over half the requests for legal advice were rejected under section 15(5) of the Act. That argument cannot be used to justify the proposed changes in the law of evidence. If the Secretary of State was claiming that power, he should have been able to say that in every case in which application was made for legal advice it was granted. In 50 per cent. of cases, it was not.
Detailed examination of the order also produces a distinct lack of confidence in the Government's wisdom in pursuing such a course. I am particularly concerned by the vagueness of article 3(1), which requires individuals to account for their presence in a particular place. There is no question of legal advice or of being in a police station where such an interrogation might be recorded. There is no requirement for officers to identify themselves, or for the accused to be informed of the crime of which he is suspected.
The Secretary of State says that there will be cautionary notice, but we are expected to pass the legislation before even seeing the form of caution that it will contain. Where will the caution be given, and what record will there be of the replies? Will the accused be cautioned in the back of a Land Rover going up to Castlereagh? Will he be picked up on the Shankill or the Falls and be told, "We believe that you are guilty of this offence. What have you to say about it? I am giving you a caution."? Will there be a proper system, or will there be no tape recordings? The possible lack of a caution, and the circumstances in which a caution is administered, are a fundamental worry. Was a witness present when the alleged caution was administered?
Sadly, many innocent people have lost their lives through being in the wrong place at the wrong time in Northern Ireland. It is worrying that presence in a particular place will in itself give rise to reasonable suspicion. The implications for such cases as that of Oliver Hughes, the brother of one of my constituents killed at Loughall, are terrifying. If mere presence might imply guilt, the scope of the definition of reasonable force as used by the security forces is likely to extend even further. That danger has not been taken on board. In the battle against the paramilitaries we must be guided by our minds as well


as by our feelings of revulsion. We must ask ourselves not whether the Government's intentions are honourable, but what will be the likely practical effects of the order.
The abolition of the right to silence is likely to make no difference to the guilty, but will have a detrimental effect on the innocent. The innocent have much to fear, as case law shows. The Secretary of State says they have nothing to fear, but they are the only people likely to be intimidated by their surroundings into making misleading concessions. If he wishes me to, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman and cite all the cases, including that of Winston Kerr in Windsor. When he was challenged, police obtained a 25-page confession from him. As a result of the order, we can expect more convictions of the innocent, while the position of the guilty remains unchanged. What better recipe could there be for accentuating the sense of injustice in Northern Ireland?
The Criminal Bar Association has warned that the abolition of the right to silence is likely to constitute a disincentive to investigation by the police. A policing strategy that over-emphasises interrogation at the expense of investigation is not likely to work; it smacks more of inquisition. The order, far from facilitating the work of the police, will provide a barrier against effective policing. The "neutrals" to whom I referred earlier will be further discouraged from co-operating with the RUC. Giving greater powers to the police has traditionally weakened, not strengthened, public confidence in them.
The order involves a shift of authority from the judiciary to the police, the transfer of the trial from the courtroom to the interrogation room, from the Crumlin road court house to Castlereagh. It presumes that the fact of arrest implies a greater degree of guilt than has previously been the case. The preferring of charges will take on much greater significance in the determination of guilt. That is not conducive to public confidence in the system of justice.
The adversarial system of our common law is being replaced by an inquisitorial one. There may be many legitimate arguments about the respective merits of the two systems. I note, however, that continental inquisitorial systems such as those of Belgium and Sweden do not enjoy the full confidence of the British tabloid press. But what we should not forget is that, in democratic countries where inquisitorial systems exist, investigations are quasi-judicial, being closely supervised by examining magistrates. The order does not include any such safeguards for suspects in Northern Ireland, nor will there be any for suspects in the United Kingdom. We would therefore have the worst of both systems.
My fear is that the order will have exactly the opposite effect from that which is intended. It will damage the image of the police and judiciary in Northern Ireland. It will make it harder for elected representatives to give the kind of endorsement of the RUC that the Government expect, and which the Opposition realise can be given only when public confidence exists in fact rather than in rhetoric. This is a profoundly retrograde step, which indicates despair on the part of the Government and will undermine the spirit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. By turning the screw of repression, the Government wind up the spring of violence.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Rightly, there is a great deal of interest in this debate. I know that Mr. Speaker would wish me to appeal for short speeches so that all hon. Members who wish to participate can do so.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) touched frequently on what I consider the crucial issue before the House: how will the order obtain the support and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland? Let us suppose that we meet a constitutional Nationalist from Northern Ireland and say to him, "Yes, there has been a change in the right to silence, which has been considered by lawyers throughout the ages to be one of the absolute rights of a person accused of a crime." How do we persuade that person that the changes, which I believe in general to be right, have been carefully considered and properly argued over and that he, when accused in Northern Ireland, will be dealt with by a law that has gone through the proper process of being "chewed over" in the House of Commons? It will be very difficult to satisfy him of that after today's proceedings.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was unable to answer my question about why the Bill procedure was not used. May I offer an explanation? It is because the Government continue to hanker after the opportunity to go for devolution. Twice since the mid-1970s the position of the minority in particular has been undermined by the attempt at a constitutional gerrymandering of some form of devolved assembly. Of course, that suits the Government. They will say, "Ah, but of course the procedure that we now have to follow in the House of Commons is most defective. We change the criminal law in Northern Ireland by order. It does not give us an opportunity to consider it properly, but it has to be done on the nod. The only way in which that can be changed is by having a devolved assembly." Of course, that is nonsense.
The contents of the order should be contained in a Bill, and what would that mean? Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a constitutional Republican is sitting in the Gallery today, saying to himself, "Well, I fear that my cousin may from time to time be on the fringe of violent and IRA activities. I want to be satisfied that he is convicted only after he has committed an offence. I want to be satisfied that my cousin is treated properly and in the same way as any other person suspected of a crime." I would say to him, "My friend, I accept that there are many different views about whether the right to silence should be absolute. Yes, academic views are undecided and divided on this point. There are those, for instance, like myself, who have practised at the criminal bar for a lifetime and, none the less, are prepared to say that the right to silence should be somewhat modified. There are others, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who take a different view."
I would say to this constitutional Republican in the Gallery: "This issue will be fought out and argued on the Floor of the House of Commons. All aspects of the measure will be argued properly and, when the law finally comes to be applied to you or your cousin, it will be a law that has been properly considered." However, if the order were adopted, the constitutional Nationalist would say, "I


have little support for the way in which they do things in Westminster. This sort of measure can go through on the nod by an order." It is because the Secretary of State has a vested interest in trying to show that the procedures in this place are defective that he has chosen the order procedure.

Mr. Gow: Does any hon. Member, or even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, believe that this is a sensible procedure for enacting such fundamental legislation? Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be continuing uproar in this place if we sought to make similar changes for England and Wales by this procedure?

Mr. Budgen: I can only say as quietly and as carefully as I can that I believe that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a perfectly good opportunity at the beginning of the debate to explain, in response to a question from me, what disadvantage would be suffered if this matter were dealt with by the Bill procedure, but he did not answer my question.
The fact is that this is being knocked through by the order procedure in a way that can only undermine the confidence of those who believe, or should believe, that Westminster is here to safeguard their rights against the Executive. Surely that is the basis of the case. That is what all of us who believe in what I know is unfashionably called integration argue for. We say to the constitutional Nationalists, "Yes, perhaps there are some Protestants in Northern Ireland who are a bit too close to the game to be able to see sometimes exactly where your rights are, but come to Westminster, where there are those who are detached and have a lifelong interest in the rights of the individual and in personal liberty."
We argue that that is the advantage of an imperial, as opposed to a devolved, Parliament. Those rights are being taken away because, since the early 1970s, the Northern Ireland Office has constantly whored after the idea of a devolved Parliament and because it wishes to say that our proceedings are defective. They are not. They can be used properly, and they should be used properly tonight.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was undoubtedly right to focus upon the impropriety of the means by which Parliament is removing this bulwark of the rule of law.
Whatever view one may hold about the situation in Northern Ireland, hon. Members cannot believe that the method of legislation that we are engaged in today or the manner in which the Secretary of State brought forward this proposal was appropriate. He did so by a written question without any trailer, without any serious press leaks—the way in which the Government usually communicate their information about important matters —and without hon. Members being given an opportunity to question him upon the reasons for the proposal. In saying that he proposes something comparable in England and Wales, the Secretary of State has at least given us some opportunity to discuss it. He has said that he has set up an internal Government committee to review these matters and to consider whether or not the evidence that he will

have to deploy is sufficient to bring about a reversal in our legal system, which has widely been seen as a pillar of the rule of law.
The manner in which the procedure was carried out must call in question the motives and the strength of the Secretary of State's case. This afternoon, the Secretary of State gave little evidence that the existence of the right to silence brings about miscarriages of justice. He asserted that many people before the courts in Northen Ireland use their right to silence, but he has not said—he could not say —that that has resulted in miscarriages of justice. By pulling on our emotional heartstrings and calling upon our worry for the judiciary in Northern Ireland, he has suggested that there is some link between what he is doing today and the prospects for restoring law and order. However, he has failed to give the House any signs that he has understood either the significance or the enormity of what he is proposing.
What is guaranteed in other countries by their constitutions is to be swept aside by the House, following a three-hour debate, with about a dozen of the Secretary of State's supporters here to listen to it, and with the full weight of Government Whips ensuring that the legislation will be carried. That is a constitutional outrage, and a monstrous way to proceed. It is only because those of us who follow Northern Ireland affairs have a great deal of sympathy with anyone who is the incumbent of the office of the right hon. Gentleman that we do not express ourselves in even stronger language when talking about him personally. I fear that, when people take up the office that the right hon. Gentleman holds, they lose their sense of perspective of the democratic rights and wrongs which have brought them to the House, and of their attachment to the rule of law that they claim to be defending in Northern Ireland.
The essence of this matter is that the Secretary of State is casting aside not merely the practice in Northern Ireland since the troubles began, but a principle of English law that has existed for centuries and one that is enshrined in the fifth amendment to the United States constitution. That principle is crucial as a guarantee of the right of every citizen in this country to the assumption that he is innocent until proved guilty. In all honesty, that right will no longer be said to exist in the Province. That reversal of the burden of truth, which is a consequence of the Secretary of State's actions, would not stand up in any other system of common law. We are driven to the conclusion that the Secretary of State is dishonouring Parliament by asking us to approve such an order. He is asking us to be, in some way, complicit to that decision.
We are faced with the most repulsive step down the road to the abrogation of the rule of law that the Secretary of State has taken. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that I have supported him and his Government in their endeavours to bring about the restoration of constitutional normality to the Province. I have been disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt whenever doubt has existed, but there is no doubt about the order.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he agrees with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does he also know that in the Irish Republic sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 confer the same permissive powers? How does he square that with what is contained in the order?

Mr. Maclennan: I believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been tested almost to destruction. With regard to the Republic's legislation, I have never thought it appropriate for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to model itself on its legislation. The very differences that exist may be part of the reason why Ireland chose to withdraw from the United Kingdom.
We face a peculiar situation in which the Secretary of State of the Conservative and Unionist party has to pray in aid the Republic's legislation—incidentally, the order will not be implemented effectively by the courts—in support of this repugnant order.
When the Secretary of State was questioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about the manner of the legislation, he gave the interesting reply that he was willing to enter into discussions with parties in the House about the mode of that legislation. Was that a serious offer? Is he willing to reconsider how we legislate in this House? Is he willing to meet all parties to discuss these matters? If he is willing, let him say so.

Mr. Tom King: I said that I would.

Mr. Maclennan: That may prove to be something that many of us would wish to follow up. Hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman has not shown himself to be forthcoming on such matters.
The Government's case is not supported by any empirical evidence that what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed will make the slightest difference to conviction rates. It could not. It has not been supported by any independent evidence, because none has been forthcoming.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1972 report from the Criminal Law Revision Committee. When that report was published, it was met with a resounding dismissal from everyone who considered it seriously. He has paid little attention to the 1981 Royal Commission —the Philips commission—on criminal procedure. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's neglect of that report, it is worth recalling some of its specific remarks about the right to silence. It is especially important to draw attention to its conclusion about that right.
On page 90 of its report, the Royal Commission stated:
All but one of us incline to the view that any modification to the present law of evidence which aimed at requiring the accused to answer a prima facie case established by the prosecution would be likely to weaken the initial burden of proof that the accusatorial system of trial places upon the prosecution. The accused should not be obliged, indeed, in the ultimate event he cannot be obliged, either to enter the witness box or to mount any defence".
Earlier, it said:
It might put strong (and additional) psychological pressure upon some suspects to answer questions without knowing precisely what was the substance of and evidence for the accusations against them; and in consequence what they needed to tell the police in order to allay the suspicion against them. This, in our view, might well increase the risk of innocent people, particularly those under suspicion for the first time, making damaging statements … any attempt … to use a suspect's silence as evidence against him seems to run counter to a central element in the accusatorial system of trial. There is an inconsistency of principle in requiring the onus of proof at trial to be upon the prosecution and to be discharged without any assistance from the accused's silence in the face of police questioning under caution as any part of their case against him at trial.
That was weighty opinion, and it was thought profoundly compelling by the the Government of that

time, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, by all the preceding Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and by the Law Officers.
No one has hitherto proposed to end the right of silence, and the Secretary of State adopted a cavalier manner in doing so. We shall vote against the order if necessary, but we hope that, in the light of the debate, the Secretary of State will see fit not to press it to a vote.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Over the years, I have many times criticised the Order in Council procedure that is applied to legislation and other matters affecting Northern Ireland. Together with my colleagues, I have sought the support of other hon. Members in our condemnation of the autocratic and colonial way in which Northern Ireland is governed. I do not intend to detain the House by repeating everything that I have said in the past. It is all on the record.
Some criticism has been made of devolution. I believe that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) should study the work of the late Northern Ireland Assembly. If that Assembly had had this order to consider, it would have spent many hours, days and weeks on it and would have produced an extremely good report. It produced excellent reports, which have been commended ever since.
My Unionist colleagues and I believe that the profound change in the law in Northern Ireland should not be made in advance of a similar change to the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are many sensible reasons for amending the existing law, but I am afraid that what will happen—we have already discussed this—is that the change will provoke another attack on Northern Ireland and on the decent law-abiding people of the Province.
By some extraordinary convolution of logic, which is peculiar to politicians, or at least to some, the people of Northern Ireland will be blamed for this change in the law. The blame will be placed, not only on their shoulders, but on the shoulders of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and of members of the Regular Army, as well as all the judges and everybody else connected with security and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. My colleagues and I say that it is not fair that everything should he twisted to condemn people who have suffered for 20 long years from obscene terrorism. Against that background, this is a modest measure.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall give way shortly. I must be brief, because Madam Deputy Speaker issued an order to that effect.
I do not ask the Government to delay this legislation, but even at this late stage I ask them to introduce the legislation promised by the Home Secretary in May this year, when he announced the establishment of a working group that included a representative from the Northern Ireland Office. In a written answer the right hon. Gentleman anticipated that joint action would be taken, because he stated:
Since there will be implications for law and practice in Northern Ireland, I am … arranging for an official from his office to serve on the group."—[Official Report, 18 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 466.]


The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Northern Ireland Office. If that is the right law for Northern Ireland, there is no reason whatever for delaying the introduction of the change in Great Britain. Change is needed. There is constant change in the law.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about the right of silence having existed in its present form for centuries, but at one time under the common law a defendant on a criminal charge could not, at an assize, speak one word in his defence. He was prohibited from doing so on the basis that it would be wrong for a defendant's own words to be used to convict. In time it was seen that a change in that law was necessary. Change took place, and we continue to have change.
The last major change in criminal trials, which was introduced in the House 22 years ago, was opposed bitterly inside and outside the House. It was introduced to get rid of the need for a unanimous verdict when a defendant appeared on a criminal charge. It allowed for replacement by a majority verdict after the jury had disagreed and after a reasonable time. There was an outcry about that, but it was introduced by the Labour Government, by the distinguished former leader of the Social Democratic party, Lord Jenkins as he now is. It was backed by the distinguished former Lord Chancellor, Sir Elwyn Jones, who was the then Attorney-General.
Every change is seen as an attack on civil liberties, but that radical change was found to be necessary. As the then Attorney-General said, there was
mounting and formidable evidence that in London at least attempts have been made and are taking place on a considerable scale to corrupt individual jurors.
The Attorney-General added:
it is difficult to prove these matters by way of evidence." —[Official Report, 12 December 1966, Vol. 738, c. 203.]
That was the reply to those who opposed the Attorney-General in the House.

Mr. Flannery: I am saddened to hear the hon. Gentleman welcome this draconian measure, which can only deepen the problem. Does he not realise that the Government are acting out of sheer frustration? Their policies are not doing what they want, they have nowhere to turn and, in desperation, they are introducing the measure precisely because they have no real answer to the problem in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has proved what I said at the beginning of my speech: it is wrong that the order should be introduced separately from changes for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I say this to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else who criticises the order. The changes have been mooted for many years by distinguished jurists and judges. The distinguished Jeremy Bentham, who should be a hero to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, said in an essay on judicial evidence in 1825:
Innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence.
It was the opinion of that distinguished mind that the existing criminal law operated to protect the guilty and that a change should be made.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, at the time when Jeremy Bentham was writing, the accused had no right to speak in his own defence, which he has

now, and there was no police force? We in the Opposition believe that the Government of the workhouses is the Government of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and that was the Government of Jeremy Bentham.

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall not get involved in the fight between the Labour party and the Conservative party. It is clear what was in the mind of Dr. Bentham, and I do not wish to depart from that.
The 11th report on evidence of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was published in 1972, made proposals for restricting the right to silence. I have a quotation, but as time is short, I shall not read it out.
It is common knowledge among legal practitioners in Britain that hardened criminals manipulate the law to their advantage. Having practised at the criminal bar in London, I know what happens in trials here. When depositions are provided by the prosecution at the commital proceedings to the defence, certain solicitors are reputed to sit down with the defendant or defendants and prepare a defence that can be woven around the prosecution's case. They have the depositions before them and, if the defendant or defendants have not said a word, subsequently at the trial before a jury they can put forward a case that has been carefully prepared to meet, and not to contest, most of the prosecution's case.
Criminals do not even need the help of solicitors to instruct them in how to manipulate the law. Hardened and experienced criminals know that it is better to stay silent and subsequently to produce their evidence, which a jury might accept as the truth or as sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
The Secretary of State said that the object of a criminal trial is to establish the innocence or guilt of the accused. That is all that the law is about. Protection must be seen in that light. In Northern Ireland, terrorists and paramilitary racketeers—sadly, there are far too many racketeers—are living off the people in certain areas. The terrorists are told by the godfathers of obscene atrocities and by their paramilitary masters to remain silent when they are apprehended by the police or the security forces. That is why it was found necessary, in the Irish Republic in 1984, to restrict that right of silence on certain grounds, and there is no problem there compared with our problem.
The arguments that have been used against the Government today could be used against the people of the Irish Republic, and they would not like it. The remarks that have been made are most offensive. I am, have been and will be critical of the Government, but we are now aiming to maintain a balance in the law in Northern Ireland. In my view, the change in the law is a matter of restoring the balance in Northern Ireland. It is common sense not to allow the criminals to mock and manipulate the law and to use it to their own advantage. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to ensure that those evil men are subjected to a sensible law and its sanctions. The people of this country—that includes Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom—expect nothing less of us.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: John Milton admonished his countrymen:
Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live.


Since Magna Carta, England has been a light to all nations, establishing and maintaining what, in an earlier age, were called "the rights of man."
The civil liberties of the individual and the limited power of the state, which are enshrined in English common law and the constitution, have been among Britain's greatest contributions to the advance of civilisation. However, that bequest is crumbling under the corrupting influence of Britain's floundering involvement in the quagmire of Northern Ireland.
The mother of Parliaments is being asked today by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to revoke one of England's keystone liberties—the right of the accused to be free of the compulsion to bear witness against himself. That freedom is so fundamental to a just society that the founders of the American nation enshrined it in the Bill of Rights. It is a jealously guarded right—and properly so—because it goes to the root of the proposition that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty and should not be obliged to give self-incriminating evidence.
I know that the issue raises fierce emotions. It divides lawyers, because many senior judges support abolition, as we have been reminded by the hon. Member for North, Down (Mr. Kilfedder), whereas the criminal bar fervently opposes abolition.
Any loss of traditional safeguards and any departure from the age-old protections of the common law must be regretted, and it ought to be any society's stated objective to retrieve such safeguards and protections as soon as circumstances permit. The insidious aspect of the presentation made this afternoon by the Secretary of State, apart from its general vagueness, is that no such return —nor the possibility of such a return—appears to be contemplated. Indeed, it is feared that these modifications of the right to silence will become a permanent part of the law, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain.
Are there any circumstances in which the right to silence can properly be abridged? Is it a right from which we can derogate? The Government in Dublin, as we have been reminded several times, thought so three years ago when the Criminal Justice Bill was enacted. Now the Dublin Government have expressed themselves deeply concerned about that move and have suggested that the 1984 Act was comparatively limited in its effect on the right to silence.
The central questions raised by today's proposals are, first, whether the new measures will help to reduce violence and save lives; secondly, whether they will help to bring about a break in the political impasse; and, thirdly, whether they can achieve those aims without obliging the community to pay too high a price in the loss of traditional safeguards and liberties. The answer to the first question is, probably, yes—at least in the short term. Whether such a reduction would have any significant bearing on the political situation is less clear. The new measures will probably help to put some guilty men away, but they will also reinforce the sense of grievance among those in the Nationalist community who view British policy in Northern Ireland essentially in terms of continuing repressive legislation.
The Secretary of State has complained, in an attempt to justify his extraordinary proposal, that justice is being thwarted. Probably it is. Miscreants have always taken advantage of constitutional protections, which are designed to shield the innocent against the abuse of the

state's police powers. Yet the tradition of free men is to make a self-conscious choice that, in the words of another Englishman, Sir William Blackstone:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.
The problem of Ulster is threatening to unhinge the Government. I agree with the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The Government's move to abolish protections against self-incrimination follows hard on another over-reaction—the recent press ban on broadcasting interviews with outlawed IRA members. In the battle against violence, democratic Governments have the right to protect themselves, and they must, of course, employ every legal weapon that is available to them. However, they cannot sacrifice fundamental rights without risking the loss of the civilised societies that they purport to protect.

Mr. Barry Porter: You asked hon. Members to speak briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall do that.
It takes a great deal for me to stand here and say that I shall be unable to support the Government in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), who now resides silently in the Opposition Whips' office, has been known to refer to me in more social atmospheres as a Liverpool Orangeman—a description to which I take no particular exception. I should normally support anything that the Government or the Northern Ireland Office can do to ensure that terrorists, whether the Provisional IRA or Loyalist paramilitaries, are convicted. I have supported such measures in the past and I shall support them in due course. I do not take the view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is Machiavellian in what he is trying to do. By his own lights, he is trying to ensure that those who maim and murder are put where they belong, but, he has got it wrong.
I do not need to rehearse the principles again. A fundamental principle of the law of the United Kingdom is about to be breached, and I do not think that it should be breached in a couple of hours on a gloomy November afternoon in the presence of a couple of dozen hon. Members. I support every word in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about that point, which I do not need to develop.
At some stage in future we shall have similar legislation for England and Wales—but I hope that it will not be introduced in a similar way. I support the point made by the hon. Member for North, Down (Mr. Kilfedder), that legislation for Northern Ireland should be introduced together with legislation for England and Wales. I have always taken the view that one of the enormous difficulties in maintaining the Union is the myth that Northern Ireland is more separate from the rest of the United Kingdom than Scotland or Wales. However, that is a matter for another debate, although it cannot be right for a fundamental change to be taking place in this way, and I shall take some persuading that the right to silence should be changed anyway.
I have one novel point to make. The right to silence was brought in originally because defendants were illiterate, incoherent and unable to advance their views sensibly when being interrogated. I have the advantage of making


a modest living outside the House as an advocate, not at the criminal bar, but in rather dodgier circumstances in Liverpool magistrates court. We had the advantage of carrying out the trial run of interviews being taped. If anybody believes that the common run of criminal is not illiterate, incoherent and unable to express himself, I invite him to come to my office at any time and I shall prove that nothing much has changed over the past 200 years. If the right to silence is to be removed, we must have a carefully considered debate at a proper time. This is not such a debate and it is not the time.

Mr. Michael Foot: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), and I shall try to reinforce them later in my speech. I shall also try to be brief, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Let me start with a word of sympathy for the Secretary of State. He has an extremely difficult and dangerous task to perform, and in most cases he does so with great skill and courage. I do not attack his general approach to his terrible problem. Anyone who has had to live through the appalling consequences of terror in Northern Ireland and on the mainland—and we all wake up in the morning to hear and see exactly what has happened—must be listened to when he says that he needs different powers to deal with the problem, and I make my remarks against that background. Nevertheless, the Government are doing something extremely dangerous. They should never have thought of introducing such a measure in this way, and I hope that even at this late stage they may think again.
In the past two weeks, the House of Commons has been presented with two measures that alter fundamental rights upheld for many generations. Furthermore, those measures have been introduced by edict, without any possibility of amendment. Last week, the Home Secretary issued an edict altering the exercise of free speech in Northern Ireland, and presumably that will also happen elsewhere. I protested that we needed a Bill to deal with such an important matter, as we could then consider it more carefully. If we had a Bill in this case, the proposal would certainly not reach the statute book in the form in which it has been presented to the House.
The Secretary of State said that there had already been much argument about the matter, but he did not give the impression in his answers that he had gone into it in great detail. He did not know the essential answers to the most important questions. That is one reason why we have the legislative process. It is a great derogation of the rights of the House for the Government to think that they can abolish them twice in two weeks.

Mr. Budgen: Does not the moral authority of Parliament rest upon the proposition that experts, such as lawyers, advance their arguments for the broad mass of people, as represented by hon. Members, to consider and chew them over? When we legislate through the order-making process, the constitutional safeguards of the individual are abrogated.

Mr. Foot: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the protest that he and other hon. Members made at

the beginning of the debate. I hope that we shall be able to make a dent at least in the Government's intentions, and that we shall not allow this process to be used again.
The Secretary of State will say that the present method of dealing with legislation in Northern Ireland has been in place for a considerable time—and I remember the procedures that were used when I was Leader of the House —but that is not an excuse. When I was Leader of the House, we were seeking to find new methods of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. We made significant constitutional changes in Northern Ireland because we believed that the people of Northern Ireland had a proper right to put their case in the House. That is why the change in the numbers was carried. There should be a proper legislative process for dealing with matters affecting Northern Ireland, and people in Northern Ireland have every right to complain if the Government do nothing about it.
We shall shortly be entering a new Session. In his own interests, the Secretary of State should fight for the introduction of a proper process for dealing with Northern Ireland legislation to replace this hole-in-the-corner rough-house. The present method is not a proper way of dealing with such far-reaching measures. The hon. Member for Wirral, South has underlined afresh the case made by those of my hon. Friends who have spoken—that this measure represents a major change in the operation of the law. It has been said that it will be extended to the country as a whole. That is all the more reason for incorporating it in a major Bill.
If the right of evidence and the right of an innocent person to protections that he has hitherto enjoyed are to be reversed in the United Kingdom as a whole, they will certainly not be done by order. Such changes would have to be accompanied by a general change in the law and there would then be no reason whatever why the contents of this order could not be incorporated in a Bill duly presented to the House.
Opposition Members will oppose the change because we believe that the principle is utterly repugnant. It would be a scandal if the House allowed such a measure to go through as the Government originally proposed it, and I am glad that it has been opposed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The debate has been brief, but I hope that, in his own interests and in the interests of Parliament, the Secretary of State will say to the Government, "Never again must measures of this nature be presented to the House in this form." If the Secretary of State wants to protect his own position and uphold justice in Northern Ireland, that is the proper way to proceed. If the Secretary of State and the Government continue in this manner, they will undermine the authority of Parliament itself.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: No hon. Member could have more regard than I have for the courage, determination and integrity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he has been badly misled by someone or some group into presenting a completely disingenuous case for an order that is rushed and ill thought out. It will not have my support, and I shall explain why.
My right hon. Friend seems to think that the right to silence is one of the most important obstacles in the way


of the conviction of guilty murdering and hateful terrorists. I have seldom heard such nonsense. If there is evidence from eye witnesses, forensic experts, evidence of letters, maps, diagrams and fingerprints, the defendant is likely to be convicted whether or not he has admitted his own guilt.
If there is no such evidence and the police allege only an admission of guilt or an insufficient explanation, the defendant is unlikely to be convicted because juries and judges, even in the Diplock courts—perhaps I should say especially in the Diplock courts—appreciate the ease of fabricating an admission. They usually require other evidence proving its truthfulness. Such a method is on its way—the tape-recorded interview of the suspect by police officers—but it has not yet become universal. Until that becomes universal, it is unnecessary for us to tinker with the right to silence in the belief that what the defendant says will contribute in one way or another to his guilt.
In either of the circumstances that I have outlined, I believe that the existence or otherwise of the right to silence is monumentally irrelevant. If one wanted to wring a confession of guilt out of a reluctant subject one might have to torture him, but of course that is wholly unacceptable and unthinkable. It is precisely because a man who has been tortured might not only confess his guilt, but might well confess his guilt although innocent, that we abolished torture and protected a person accused by giving him the right to say, "I have a right to be silent. I will say nothing. You produce evidence to prove your case."
Without torture, how can one force a man to speak? Can one pretend that what he says will not be used against him later and then use it? No, that is not allowed. Can one trick him by some promise or frighten him by some threat? No, that is not allowed. A guilty man cannot be forced to speak—nor can anything that he says under force be used in evidence against him—because of the danger that an innocent man might incriminate himself.
Those who do not understand our law should not seek to twist and distort it because of their understandable frustration. My right hon. Friend said today, and has said before, that terrorists can abuse and exploit the system by remaining silent. That merely shows whither frustration leads. What sort of right is it if people can be attacked for taking advantage of it? Is that not evidence of the danger of making ill-considered statements in support of ill-considered orders?
Of course my right hon. Friend is frustrated—we all are. Terrorism is appalling and must be stopped. It is deplorable that we cannot do more to stop it. Perhaps if we introduced capital punishment we would be doing more to stop it, but our horror should not blind us to our responsibilities to operate a reputable system of justice. Nor should it blind us into thinking that any interference with the right to silence, however limited or closely defined, will lead to the conviction of more who are guilty. It cannot, and it will not.
Nevertheless, it may surprise some hon. Members to hear that I am not an avid supporter of the right to silence. It is a sacred cow, but it is only a shadow of its former self. To change the metophor, it is a legal ruin, not a safe warm house. Today, one can be forced to answer questions from the Department of Trade and Industry, or to disclose an alibi. What was said to someone other than a police officer or customs official is admissible in evidence against a person. What is said to a police officer until he has

sufficient evidence of a prima facie case to caution someone is admissible. If a person says anything at all, he can be asked why he did not say something else. If a person does not give evidence, a judge can make hostile comments, by innuendo if not expressly.
The right to silence can even be a trap for the innocent on occasion. Intelligent jurors, whatever warning they may receive from a judge that it is a man's right to be silent, may naturally ask themselves why the man did not speak or explain himself. In our criminal cases, solicitors often assume that the men they are defending are guilty before having heard anything about the case, and will tell their clients to say nothing. They do so at the very moment when an explanation might have stopped the whole process of the prosecution or a criminal trial.
I am not one of those who pretend that the right to silence is a vital protector of the innocent, as has been claimed in a number of speeches today. That is going over the top, especially in the light of the danger that the right could be a snare for the innocent.
Why, then, should we not merely sweep it away? Because, for all its thinness and ruined state, the right to silence is still one of the significant linchpins of an accusatorial system and we should be cautious about abolishing it. Under this system the police make an accusation and have to prove it. They try their hardest to do so; sometimes they try too hard. Sometimes they are led to falsify, so the citizen must be protected.
Perhaps the time has come for us to consider more seriously the inquisitorial system that is used on the continent, in which the truth of whether the crime has been committed and of who committed it is investigated by a judicial figure. In such circumstances, the accused needs no right to silence because the police will be under less pressure to prove an allegation that may not have come from them in the first place. But while we still have the accusatorial system we should recognise that it is a delicate and timeworn structure that should not be tinkered with without the most careful, cautious and clear consideration.
My second objection is that this measure does not accord with any of these criteria. The Secretary of State gave us a clear sign of the danger of what is being asked of us when he was asked what caution should be given in these four situations. What warning should be given to protect the innocent man and enable him to understand fully the consequences of not speaking? My right hon. Friend could not answer. He said that this had been debated for a long time in the country. If that were so, I should have thought that some conclusion would have been arrived at. Where is it? What is it? My right hon. Friend could not answer.
It has not been fully considered. We are rushing through an ill-considered measure. My right hon. Friend said that the courts would decide. Why should the courts decide what it is our job to decide? Why should we write a blank cheque against the liberty of the individual, cross our fingers and hope that some court will write the law that it is Parliament's job to write? We are democratically elected to write the law, and the judges are there to interpret it. It is not their job to write it. It is wrong of my right hon. Friend to say that the courts will decide the caution.
The measure contains other signs of haste and lack of thought. Following his statement that nothing in the order would oblige an accused person to speak—it contains no provisions for thumb screws or racks, which is good of my


right hon. Friend—he said that no guilt was to be presumed from his silence. He said that a man's silence would not advance the case against him. That is untrue. If inferences can be drawn against a suspect from his silence, the case is advanced against him, however rare and carefully defined these occasions are. In some instances the case against an accused will be advanced. The order cannot mean anything else, or there would be no point in bringing it before us.
My third objection is that the legal profession will be overwhelmingly against the change. We do not necessarily have to accept what the legal profession says. We can overrule it, but the profession will add its reasons for opposing the order to those that have been heard in the debate tonight. As the criminal law is administered by lawyers—prosecutors, defenders and judges—should not their opinions be seriously considered and their objections weighed in the balance?

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if we had followed the proper Bill procedure the legal profession would have been able to offer its opinion of the various safeguards? When the legislation finally became an Act, the profession would then be satisfied that it had played its proper part in contributing to the discussion, instead of which the Secretary of State tells us that he does not understand the legal technicalities. He will leave them to other experts, and we must approve or disapprove on the nod.

Mr. Lawrence: Not only that, but such a Bill could have been subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. The experts could have come along and given evidence under the procedure which the House introduced for just such occasions—occasions when changes touching the liberty of the individual can be carefully and maturely considered across party lines.
My fourth objection is that I do not see how the measure will lead to the conviction of more who are guilty of terrorism or any other crime, and I have already given my reasons for that conclusion.
All the protections that my right hon. Friend has introduced may be irrelevant in practice if there is no absolute right to silence at a trial. Solicitors can already be excluded and prevented from advising their clients by the police. It happens all the time in serious cases under present law, even after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Can there be any real confidence that the other procedures offer protection? And when a solicitor has been excluded, how often is a jury persuaded that the alleged words which constitute the only evidence against an accused have in truth been said? That is one of the reasons why, in cases in which the only evidence is an alleged admission of guilt, juries will not convict at the Central Criminal Court, or, for all I know, in courts all over the land.
This is a serious area of the law into which it is undesirable to blunder while the eyes have been blinded by the horror of terrorism and by the frustration of its continuance. My right hon. Friend needs to be cautious. He should not do in Northern Ireland what he would not do in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Yet my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has laid an order for England and Wales along similar lines. So

tonight's measure is not just the thin end of the wedge. It will be the whole wedge, which is also to be driven home without consideration under the full Bill procedure in due course. If my right hon. Friends have no conviction that those measures would survive the proper procedures for changing the fundamental protections offered by our laws, they cannot count on my support, this time or next.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Much has been eloquently said by right hon. and hon. and learned Members about the legality of this order, and it would be wrong of me, as a lay person, to attempt to deal with that aspect. Like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I shall ignore the legalities of this measure and deal instead with Northern Ireland's political realities.
The fundamental flaw that is to be found in this order is not the way in which it has been introduced—although, as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, I should certainly like more time to consider it. The flaw is that it is based on the great lie that underlines the Government's whole approach to Northern Ireland—that one can make the law act in such a way that it becomes a weapon with which to defeat terrorism. That is not what the law is there for. The law is there for administering justice, not for fighting a war. The Prime Minister herself has said that she is fighting a war in Northern Ireland, and now she is attempting, through the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to bend the law in such a way that it becomes an instrument of that war. That is to demean and to diminish the whole process of law.
Another lie underlying the Government's approach is that, if one bends the law to one's advantage, one will be better able to defeat terrorism. That lie must be nailed and challenged in this House. From the point of view of the lay person—from the worm's eye view—such a policy deprives the individual of his right to be deemed innocent until evidence is brought before the courts proving him guilty. It also takes away the individual's right not to incriminate himself. The way in which the order compromises the existing situation alone will create great difficulties in Northern Ireland. If such a change is playing with fire in an ordinary society, it will create a bush fire in a society such as Northern Ireland, given the strife, divisions and endemic violence there.
In 1981, the Royal Commission on criminal procedure identified the basic element in the right to silence as the suspect's vulnerability when questioned by police, which remains as valid today as it did then. The Committee for the Administration of Justice comments:
The proposals are likely to make what happens in the police station an even more vital determinant of guilt or innocence than at present, and without adequate control of police interrogation methods, this must be a matter of concern.
Removal of the right to silence would be another step towards guilt and innocence being determined not in open courts, not by the judges, but in the interrogation rooms of police stations.
That is of special relevance to Northern Ireland, for three reasons. First, in the investigation by Mr. Justice Bennett, a member of the British Bar, into the way in which the RUC interrogated suspects in Castlereagh and Gough barracks, he found that they used brutal methods


to obtain confessions. That is a matter of record not by an Irish nationalist but by a British jurist. For that reason, we must be particularly careful.
Secondly, the same Government who are introducing this measure have already been found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of inhuman and degrading treatment. Thirdly, the same courts that will be required to administer this order presided over the bizarre and grotesque supergrass trials that substantially eroded confidence in those courts in Northern Ireland. It is for those three reasons that we must oppose and question not only this order but the measure introduced last week and the measure that will, before the month is out, tamper with a free and open franchise. We must register our concern.
Why is this order needed? Is the existing law not adequate? Are not the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Public Order Act 1986, and the massive powers they give the security forces adequate? Is the measure permitting seven days' detention not sufficient? Is it not enough that people can be refused—as 52 per cent. of them are—access to legal advice for 48 hours, and that a police officer sits in on any consultation between the accused and his legal adviser? Or are people walking free from the courts who should be convicted because of the basic principle and tradition of a right to silence? If such is the suggestion, it must be challenged with the facts.
In the second quarter of this year, 94 per cent. of those charged in Northern Ireland were convicted. In case it should be thought that this is a vintage year, I can tell the House that in 1980, the figure was 94 per cent.; 1981, 93·9 per cent.; 1982, 93·8 per cent.; 1983, 90 per cent.; 1984, 91·4 per cent.; 1985, 90 per cent.; 1986, 95·4 per cent.; and 1987, 94·2 per cent. Is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still saying that Northern Ireland conviction rates merit this order's derogation from normal practice? It can be challenged on those grounds alone.

Mr. Kilfedder: The last figures I had for Northern Ireland convictions before the Diplock trials showed that they were no greater than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps there is some conflict between our two sets of figures. I would like to know.

Mr. Mallon: I am using the Government's own figures in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which are a matter of record in the House and in the Official Report.
Are a large number of suspects remaining silent in Northern Ireland and avoiding conviction by doing so? The reality is that that is not the case, and that most convictions are secured as a result of statements by the accused; over the past year, 80 per cent. of suspects pleaded guilty.
I hope that I am not being too cynical in suggesting that this measure is another Government palliative designed to satisfy British public opinion, because the Government can say, "Look what we are doing to get to grips with this problem." Or perhaps it is another sop to Unionism. If it is either of those two things, it is a cynical approach and one that attacks the rights of the individual in attempting to solve a political problem that the Government have not yet properly grasped.
The legal profession is opposed to this measure. It is opposed to it in the North of Ireland. The Secretary of State already has the views about the lack of consultation

of the Law Society, the Committee for the Administration of Justice and the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. He has the views of the Criminal Bar Association and the National Council for Civil Liberties. But they are all out of step: the people who are right are those within the Cabinet. It is not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, nor the Home Secretary, but the person or people within the Cabinet who are saying, "Let us try to solve the problem by punitive measures." They will not do it now or in the future.
Let me deal briefly with references that have been made to that which pertains in the Irish Republic. I oppose this measure in the Irish Republic, as I do here. The fact that it exists there does not make it right. It is wrong there for the same reasons that it is wrong here. However, there are four major differences there. First, it has never been invoked since it has been introduced in the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether it is felt that it would not be right to invoke it or whether to do so would be counter-productive, but it never has. There is a right of appeal under the Irish constitution—an appeal which does not exist here, where there is no basic Bill of Human Rights to which to appeal. There is no restriction on access to solicitors, and the Garda involved must have a statutory duty to make information available if there is an investigation in relation to the interrogation of any citizen.
Many of us who are not members of the legal profession are sometimes bemused by the way in which the legal profession approaches things and would question the Government's attitude. Speaking at Cambridge university to the Tory Reform Group on 25 October, the Attorney-General said:
The problem with the practice of the right to silence is that guilty people go free because juries are unable to exercise their common sense.
We must weigh that against the opinion of Sir Rupert Cross, who, I am told, is the expert on this. He said:
One of the objects of the law of evidence is to prevent common sense from having a free rein because there are cases in which to permit it might lead to an unjust result.
We are asked here to balance the Attorney-General's opinion against that of Sir Rupert Cross.
The Attorney-General further makes the points that people should not be
acquitted by what seems the eloquent exploitation of the rules of the game.
I know of no hon. Member who is better equipped to judge what constitutes exploiting the rules of the game than the Attorney-General, if we are to judge by his decision earlier this year in relation to people who have broken the law. That is one of the problems that faces the layman, and it is a matter on which the Secretary of State should think again.

Mr. William Cash: Listening to the debate, one might be forgiven for wondering whether many hon. Members have read the order. There is no provision in the order forcing a person to give evidence. Article 2(4) says:
A person shall not be committed for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure or refusal as is mentioned in Article 3(2), 4(4), 5(2) or 6(2).
Many of the speeches that we have heard from the Opposition, referring to the fifth amendments, thumbscrews and other matters are a load of hot air. It has always been established—I can quote references if I have


to—that a trial judge can comment on the fact that the accused has decided not to give evidence. There is nothing in the order to require an accused to give evidence.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, in refusing to give way to me, that no real comparison could be made between the position in Southern Ireland and the United Kingdom on a matter of this kind. The plain fact is that the Republic has sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. It may be that for a variety of reasons the judges have decided not to invoke it, but the reality is that the Republic has passed that legislation. It is perfectly compatible that we should pass similar legislation, particularly having regard to the determined way in which terrorists on both sides of the argument are deliberately determined not to make any statements, so as to ensure that no justice is carried out under which they may be convicted.

Mr. Lawrence: Why does my hon. Friend say that, if a man is told that he ought to say something and that, if he fails to do so, such inferences will be drawn against him as may be proper, that is not an obligation upon him to speak?

Mr. Cash: My hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, has not read the order. The point is that each of these important provisions says that the accused, after he has been called upon by the court, is merely put in that position if he chooses to exercise his right to silence. The crucial word then is "may": the court or jury may draw the inference. In other words, there is no compulsion to do so. Therefore, he preserves his right to silence on the one hand and the court is merely empowered—permitted—to draw an inference which, as I have already said, is a principle already entrenched in case law.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman cannot believe that.

Mr. Cash: I am simply looking at what the order states, and it is on that basis that I conclude my argument.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I apologise to the House for not being present throughout the debate, but let me briefly say something about the right of silence, which was introduced into all European systems of law following the Spanish inquisition. It was equally required because, until, I think, 1898 in England and 1892 in Scotland, an accused was not allowed to give evidence, so anything that he did say, whether under torture or not, could not be corrected, explained, denied or added to. Once the accused was entitled to give evidence, the right to silence became absurd.
The right to silence has never been part of the law of Scotland, in that, until 1923, all persons accused were immediately brought before a magistrate so that they could explain their position. Therefore, the innocent confirmed that their story was consistent from the beginning and the guilty were unable to make up a false defence once they knew what the evidence was. That was reintroduced in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act in 1980, under my guidance. It is important that nobody accused should be able to hide behind a barrier when, after

all, if he is to be convicted, the idiot witness is not allowed the right of silence. However stupid he is, he will be convicted on the compulsive say-so of the witness. Therefore, we should be cautious about the emotion of the right to silence.
However, I caution my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. To introduce by order as emotive and structural a matter as this is imagined to be by the law of England is a questionable constitutional change. Section 10 of the Bill of Rights of 1891 in the United States, where the concept of the right to silence is supposedly enshrined in the fifth amendment, says that no man shall be compelled to give evidence against himself. That is purely a protection against torture. If one is to have verbals, the right to silence is no protection against anything. Therefore, it is important that we should clarify in our minds the fact that for the accused to make his position clear at the earliest possible moment is in his interest and in the interests of justice. To do it before a magistrate and not in the secrecy of a police station ensures that what he says is there for all to see.
Since that has been the law of Scotland, which is supposed to be the civilised part of the civilian tradition, the Roman tradition of Europe, I see no reason why the law of England should not at last be brought up to date, and with great respect to those in Northern Ireland, I do not know why they are worried.

Mr. John Fraser: The order has been described as constitutionally outrageous, and that is not an exaggeration. We have an order instead of a Bill and we have been allowed about an hour and a quarter of Back-Bench contributions. Apart from the Government Front Bench, barely a good word has been said about the order by any hon. Member from either side of the House.
The order is being applied not only to terrorist offences. It changes the law fundamentally as it applies to a harassed housewife who may be accused of a shoplifting offence or to someone who may be accused of careless driving. It applies throughout the range of crimes. It is a matter not simply of emergency or terrorism; it is a very broad change which we are urged to agree after only two or three hours of debate.
The Secretary of State said that it had been discussed exhaustively. I do not think that that is true. That certainly was not the view of the Law Society of Northern Ireland in its press release which protested that it
had not been consulted about a change in the law of 'such a fundamental nature'.
It is true that the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972 recommended a change in the rules. There was plenty of debate about that recommendation, and the preponderance of the views expressed about the recommendation of that committee was rejection. The conclusions of that committee certainly were rejected by a Conservative Government between 1972 and 1974, and they were not implemented by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. There was another opportunity in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1983, but they were rejected there.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: I must keep my remarks short. I gave up time for others, and it is only fair that I should not be interrupted.
In the current legislative year, there was an opportunity to change the law in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, yet here we have an order which is a constitutional outrage. An announcement made in the last 10 days of October is to become the law of the land in Northern Ireland on 8 November. That must be a constitutional outrage, particularly in view of the very limited time that hon. Members have had to discuss it.
The Secretary of State said that it is a modest change. It is not a modest change. It changes the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. Of course, there are isolated exceptions, but it means that the silence of a defendant is to be taken as corroboration of the evidence which is presented by the prosecution. That is a fundamental change in the nature of the law of evidence that has existed in this country for hundreds of years.
Of course, there are occasions when we have made absolute offences which apply to small things such as watering milk and the breathalyser test. However, in other cases, very sensibly, we have looked at circumscribing the right of the defence to ambush the prosecution, and we introduced the notice of alibi. If the Government were bringing forward a considered arrangement for giving notice of defences which ambush the prosecution, that might he a reasonable way of approaching the matter. Instead, within a matter of two and a half hours, they propose fundamentally changing law which has existed for hundreds of years.
The Secretary of State complained that 50 per cent. of those accused in Northern Ireland refuse to answer questions. He is really saying that that 50 per cent. of accused people ought to be playing a part in convicting themselves. He is saying that the combination of an accusation and some evidence allied to the exercise of the right to silence leads to a greater degree of conviction. That must be self-incrimination, which is a very fundamental change. It is not a modest change, as the Secretary of State suggested. It runs counter to the rights which were transplanted from England to the United States and developed in the American constitution. I am sure that the Secretary of State should be aware of the dangers to his own policy of providing a new grievance which can be developed in the United States.
The measure is introduced in Northern Ireland in circumstances where there is less protection than in England. I instance four. First, there are occasions in Northern Ireland—I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that it involves about half the cases—when the accused is refused access to a lawyer in the first 48 hours; therefore, there is less protection there for a person who wishes to exercise the right of silence.
Secondly, in Northern Ireland there is no duty solicitor scheme such as operates under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England where a duty solicitor is available at all hours of the day and night to assist when somebody is accused and held for questioning at a police station. That protection is absent in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State does not even know what kind of caution will be used. Article 3 of the order contains no words to imply that a caution ought to be given at all. It says that somebody is to be
officially informed that he might be prosecuted",

although in later articles it states that he has to be told in "ordinary language", which is what is meant by a caution. It seems grossly unsatisfactory to make such a fundamental change in the law of evidence and for the Secretary of State not even to be aware of the caution that is to be administered.
Lastly, there is the weakness of the absence of jury trial in Northern Ireland. We can all understand the reasons for having Diplock courts, but there is the final absence of the protection of the scepticism of 12 citizens who may be much more willing to question the way in which statements have been taken and admissions made than would a judge sitting alone.
I have very little time, but I wish to make one detailed criticism of the order. If we were in Committee, we could spend several mornings considering the detail of the order. I have only two minutes to consider some of the detail that I shall draw to the attention of the House. Article 3 does not say that the defendant must actually be accused of a crime.
Article 3(1)(a) states that at any time when somebody is
being questioned by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed"—
if he—
failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence.
an inference can be drawn from that failure later in proceedings. From the wording of article 3, it is clear that a person can be questioned about the suspicion of somebody else having committed a crime, yet, because he fails to mention a salient fact during his questioning about somebody else having committed a crime, that can be held against him in his trial.
Taking some words from article 3(1)(b)—they are not out of context—if the accused, on being
officially informed that he might be prosecuted, failed to mention any such fact,
inferences could be drawn. As an illustration, if somebody is told that he might be prosecuted for careless driving and he shrugs his shoulders—as most of us would in the circumstances—and hopes that nothing will happen, the fact that he shrugged his shoulders and then introduced a defence means that an inference may be drawn against him and he could well be convicted by the shrug of his shoulders. But for the grace of God, anybody could be convicted in such circumstances. If a store detective says to a housewife, "You may be prosecuted for taking these goods out of the shop," the order applies equally as it does to the terrorist.
We are not debating a special arrangement for terrorist offences. I do not doubt that the abolition of the right to silence will lead to more convictions. I do not doubt that the abolition of the right to silence will enable some guilty people who now go free to be convicted. But some innocent people who now go free will also be convicted. One of the planks of our constitution is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted. That plank is being removed in a telescoped debate without proper consideration. That is not the way to defeat terrorism. It is the way to give terrorists new friends, new alibis, and new grievances. The order should be rejected by the House.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the short time available, I shall seek to answer some of the points raised in the debate and to correct some of the deeply


misplaced and, at times, hysterical criticisms that have been made, particularly by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and, I am sorry to say, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) asked whether, under article 3, someone who brought forward for the first time at trial some facts or explanation which he might have been expected to produce earlier could be convicted on that alone. It is important for the House to know that, under article 2(4) of the order,
A person shall not be committed for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure or refusal as is mentioned
in the articles referred to.
My hon. Friends have raised the question of the caution. As they will know, the matter of the caution, until the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes of practice, was always a matter for the judges. The Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary of Northern Ireland are considering, at the request of the Government, the appropriate procedures that will have to be followed by the police when questioning suspects if Parliament approves the order.
That advice will be issued to the Royal Ulster Constabulary as an amended version of the present judge's rules, which apply in Northern Ireland, or as administrative guidance to the police pending replacement of the judge's rules by a code of practice under the provisions of the forthcoming police and criminal evidence order, which is being laid and is currently in draft for consultation in Northern Ireland. There will be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise it in the context of that procedure.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) mentioned tape recording. The reasons why the tape recording of suspects in terrorist cases cannot be made known to the outside world must be clear to anyone who considers the matter. The House should remember that there is the safeguard that all interrogation of terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland is carried out in one of three holding centres under closed circuit television surveillance by uniformed police officers. That safeguard applies to every such suspect.

Mr. McNamara: Closed circuit television surveillance does not alter the fact that the contents of the tape recordings are not known.

The Solicitor-General: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to ponder his own question.
The right to a solicitor was raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, any terrorist suspect has the right to a solicitor. In 1987, 212 were given immediate access to a solicitor. For reasons set out in the Act, which will be well understood by the hon. Gentleman, there are reasons why in some terrorist cases there may be a delay. However, 264 were given access in periods up to 48 hours and after 48 hours everyone had the right of access to a solicitor.
Some hon. Members have sought to argue that this is a hasty measure, which is not carefully considered and is some sort of knee-jerk reaction to terrorism. That is not so. The order is part of a reaction to serious crime generally —I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr.

Fraser) for recognising that—in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Conditions have changed since the Royal Commission, which was set up in 1978 and reported in 1981, and present-day experience in England, Wales and the Province appears to be significantly different from what the Royal Commission found.
My hon. Friends will remember that the debate stems from long before the work of the Royal Commission. The Criminal Law Revision Committee made its 11th report in June 1972. Members of that Committee were respected figures. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North saying that nobody who supported the order could believe in the liberty of the citizen. When one considers that the members of the CLRC were led by judges of immense experience, headed by Lord Justice Edmund-Davies and many other distinguished judges, those remarks seem deeply out of place.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, whom I deeply respect, contrasted my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with Professor Rupert Cross. He said that he would prefer his opinion to that of my right hon. and learned Friend. Professor Rupert Cross was a member of the CLRC which unanimously advocated this provision and in all his books he has constantly argued for it in the most persuasive way.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

The Solicitor-General: The conclusions of the Royal Commission, based on the evidence then available to it, seem somewhat surprising now. Paragraph 4.46 of the report says:
to summarise the research indicates that the privilege not to incriminate oneself is not used by suspects in the great majority of cases and keeping silent altogether is said to be very rare.
It found that the right of silence was not at that time a right that the generality of suspects chose to exercise.
The conclusions were based on fairly limited research by Mr. Paul Softley in only four police stations. It suggested that only 4 per cent. of those interviewed failed to answer at all and only 8 per cent. failed to answer some questions. I invite the House to compare that with what is now known from experience in serious criminal matters in England and Wales and from statistical evidence in relation to suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House, nearly half of all suspected terrorists fail to answer any question of substance. I hope that the House will begin to see why men of good will support the order and why learned judges and jurists throughout the country believe that it is high time that we introduced a measure of this sort.
I shall seek to allay one other misconception. Several hon. Members, in today's debate and in public comments, appear to believe that the changes proposed involve a shift in the burden of proof from prosecution to defence. That is a complete misunderstanding. The prosecution will continue to have to prove its case according to the same high standard, which is that the court and jury should be sure beyond reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt. The case must be proved by evidence. Mere silence in the face of accusation will never be enough. That is made expressly clear in article 2(4), to which I referred earlier.
The changes allow the court or jury, applying their common sense, to draw whatever inference seems


appropriate from the silence of the accused and to consider in doing so the comments of the prosecution and the judge. Sometimes an adverse inference would be wholly inappropriate. The judge may be expected to draw that to the jury's attention. On other occasions, the failure to put forward an innocent explanation may cry out for clarification. To deny the jury the right to hear the comments of the prosecution, the defence and the judge on that failure and to ponder its significance before making up their minds is to introduce an artificial restraint, which is no safeguard to the innocent and provides unnecessary advantage to the guilty.
The measures proposed in the draft order are founded in common sense. They will restore some of the balance of fairness between prosecution and defence. They will increase the likelihood that justice will prevail in our courts and, by doing so, they will make the path of serious crime more hazardous for those striving to undermine the rule of law.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 210.

Division No. 476]
[4.01 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus





Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Miss Ann Widdecombe and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. David Davis.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foster, Derek


Allen, Graham
Foulkes, George


Alton, David
Fraser, John


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Tony
Haynes, Frank


Blunkett, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Boateng, Paul
Henderson, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Holland, Stuart


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Hume, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Cox, Tom
Kilfedder, James


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cryer, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Duffy, A. E. P.
Livsey, Richard


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Fearn, Ronald
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flannery, Martin
Mallon, Seamus


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)






Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wall, Pat


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Dr. John Marek and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. George J. Buckley.

Division No. 477]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beggs, Roy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CL't's)
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Cash, William
Gower, Sir Raymond


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Couchman, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hanley, Jeremy


Curry, David
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Harris, David


Day, Stephen
Haselhurst, Alan


Devlin, Tim
Hayes, Jerry


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dorrell, Stephen
Hayward, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Heddle, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mudd, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Mellor, David
Trotter, Neville


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walters, Sir Dennis


Moore, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Woodcock, Mike


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 20th October 1988, be approved.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the motion relating to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill:
That the Promoters of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bills)" were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) originally introduced the two Bills, I asked whether they were hybrid Bills. You rightly said that the Examiner had examined the Bills and said that they were in order. We had several discussions with the Examiner, but unfortunately the holder of the office is not the person who originally approved the Bills. We found the present Examiner perfectly acceptable and most helpful in the guidance and assistance that he gave us.
My point of order is this. While it is not your concern that the Government have put a two-line Whip on these two Bills, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that action, coupled with their past practice when these Bills have been discussed on the Floor of the House, and with what happened when they were originally moved, shows that the Government are deeply involved. Therefore, I ask you to rule that the Bills are hybrid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is right: when the Bills were originally introduced, he raised the question of the possibility, as he saw it, of hybridity arising, and on that occasion I sought guidance and was assured, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, that the Bills were not hybrid. The way that Bills are whipped is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman also recognises, but if, hypothetically, the Government were to favour a particular Bill, that of itself would not make it hybrid. Hybridity is a question of the inherent qualities of the Bill, and that point does not arise.

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 22 July, as reported in Hansard, at column 1175, I questioned whether the Bills were private, because there had been a meeting between the outside promoters of the Bill and the then Secretary of State for Transport. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you gave your ruling on that and we were satisfied that, given that the Bill concerns the Secretary of State for Transport, there was nothing wrong with that meeting taking place.
However, it has come to my notice that, since then, the promoters of one of the Bills has met not only the Secretary of State for Transport but the Secretary of State for Energy and I can assume that at that meeting there was some discussion about the moving of bulk cargoes of interest to that portfolio through this port. I assume that there has been no meeting with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to discuss the sugarbeet and other agricultural produce that will go through the port, and no meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss the iron ore and other forms of steel getting through the plant.
In those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you look differently at the judgment you gave earlier about whether these are private or public Bills? The Departments closely connected with them seem to be running the passage of the Bills through the House, although they are supposed to be private Bills. Could you give us another ruling on this?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is high time that we managed to sort out when a private Bill is a public Bill, a Government Bill or a hybrid Bill. We are fast reaching the point when Ministers not only meet those representing South African interests on behalf of the promoters of the Bill but they put on two-line Whips to get the troops here. We know that, on the last occasion, the Prime Minister herself, although she says that she is against apartheid, trotted through the Lobby in her carpet slippers and voted for the Bill.
All those ingredients added together show that it is high time that that the Chair, in this case the Chairman of Ways and Means, should start to come to the conclusion, as many on this side of the House and the country have, that this is not a private Bill. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure and when there is an abuse of parliamentary procedure, it reflects not only on those involved in this corrupt procedure but on the Chair. It is high time that Bills of this nature were ruled out of order. Let us get on with the next business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). It appears that his recollection of a ruling that I made on a previous occasion was correct. It appeared to me quite sensible advice to give on that occasion. I shall not repeat it now, except to say that I do not think there has been any impropriety. Obviously, I do not know, nor is it a matter of concern to me, whom Ministers meet to discuss matters that come before the House, but I do not detect any impropriety.
Let me deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I understand the concern that has been expressed several times about the private Bill procedure in the House. He will know that, in response to that concern, I took the initiative to establish a Joint Committee which has laboured long and hard. I must take this opportunity to express my appreciation of its hard work in producing a report.
After those people who are most directly affected by the report, and others, have had an opportunity to look at its recommendations and express their views, I very much hope that the House will be able to take those views into account in making its recommendations in the fullness of time. The hon. Member for Bolsover will no doubt want to take part in that debate, and I shall certainly bear him in mind.

Mr. Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to disagree with your ruling, but would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Energy to be brought to the House to explain what took place at the meeting with the promoters of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me, and I am sure that the House will recognise that.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all aware of and very much welcome your initiative in encouraging the House of Commons and the House of Lords to set up a Joint Committee. We welcome the unanimous recommendations of that Committee.
One of the matters that concerns many of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that, if the Committee's unanimous

recommendations were adopted by the House, this sort of Bill would not be able to get through. If the carry-over motion were not passed, these Bills would have to start all over again and the rules of the House would probably have changed to make sure that that could not be done. We are concerned that, by passing these carry-over motions or even by contemplating carrying over these Bills, we would be foreclosing on the likely decision of the House that such Bills should not be contemplated in future. We think that that is a point of order and we would like your ruling on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I doubt whether the points that have been put to me are matters of order or matters for the Chair. They might be taken into account by the House in the ensuing debate. What might be the view of the House on the procedure is in the realm of hypothesis and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would not expect me to speculate on what might be the view of the House in the event of the Joint Committee report being debated and decisions being reached by the House. Along with many of the other points that have been made, these are matters that the House might take into account in reaching its conclusions when the Question is finally put from the Chair.

Mr. Michael Brown: I wish to support the motions to carry over into the next Session the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. The House will recall that we have had several debates on these Bills. We spent about five hours on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill when we considered it on Second Reading before the summer recess, and we spent almost six hours on the other Bill. After much debate and passion, the House concluded that both Bills should be given a Second Reading. Those Bills are now being considered in Committee under the private Bill Committee procedure.
I and a number of other hon. Members have attended most of the sessions, sitting in the public gallery. We all agree that progress is being made. Petitions with legitimate concerns and fears may present their case to Committee members. All hon. Members who have seen the four hon. Members concerned working during the past three weeks accept that they have been doing a marvellous job, giving petitioners every opportunity to examine and cross-examine. Associated British Ports has now concluded its case as a promoter of the Bill. It has been examined and cross-examined fiercely and effectively by those who have petitioned against the Bill. During the past week, the promoters of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill have been putting their case and their witnesses have been examined and cross-examined. There will be an important opportunity for those opposed to the Bill to present their case.
The House has resolved that the Committee is the place for these Bills to be judged. Witnesses can be called by both sides and those four hon. Members can act in a judicial capacity, looking dispassionately at the evidence before them, and conclude what recommendation to put before the House. It would be a great waste of time, particularly for the petitioners and the promoters, who have been working assiduously in that Committee, if they


found that they were unable to proceed in presenting their cases. For those reasons, it is essential that the Committee should be able to do its job properly.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman says that it would be a great waste of time if the Committee's work were made pointless by the decision that I and many of my hon. Friends hope will be made later tonight. However, is he not saying that the Joint Committee, which has considered the private Bill procedure, has engaged in a great waste of time, if the Bill proceeds as he proposes?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree with that analysis. I wish to echo your words of tribute, Mr. Deputy Speaker to those Members of both Houses who have presented a report with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I hope that we can have an early debate on that report.
The promoters of both Bills are sympathetic to the content of that report. For example, if I am not mistaken, the recommendation regarding carry-over motions suggests that, when private Bills have been brought before the House and given a Second Reading, we should not have to go through this kind of debate and that there should be no need for a carry-over motion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads that part of the report. These two Bills, which have been before the House for the past six months, have brought into sharp focus the need for a re-examination of the private Bill procedure.
The House has spent a great deal of time considering whether the Bills should be given a Second Reading. They have been given a Second Reading and they are now in Committee. The petitioners are doing a first-rate job in assimilating the evidence that they require to present to the Committee. The promoters are also doing their job. It is right and proper to allow those four hon. Members who have spent so much time on the thankless task of serving on a private Bill Committee to continue their work. It would not be right and proper for us to intervene in that work; I very much commend the carry-over motions.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I do not question your judgments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the various points of order that were raised before the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) addressed the House. I know that you sympathise with some of the sentiments which were expressed against the background of personal, industrial and social objectives.
I believe that the Bill should be opposed at all stages. I am not satisfied that it is genuine private business. Most of the Bill's provisions relate to commercial enterprise, and the machinery of Parliament has been used to serve the interests of Associated British Ports. If the Bill is enacted, various strategic elements of the British economy will be adversely affected. It is inevitable that miners, transport workers, dockers and others who work in industries associated with the ports will be adversely affected. It could be said that no one group of workers will be unaffected. The Bill embraces almost every element of our industrial society.
The House will he aware that Lord Marshall said that, on the basis of privatisation, he would be prepared to take in 30 million tonnes of imported coal. Associated British Ports cannot say how much coal its terminal will be able to import. It must, however, have engaged in market

research. It will have examined its investment policy and considered cash-flow liquidity. It is clear to everyone that it is a long-term investment that is bound to yield substantial profits. Profit is the motive behind the exercise, and it will be enhanced by Government collusion. If the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State participate in voting during the passage of a private Member's Bill, we must instinctively conclude that it represents part of their philosophy. It would be nonsense to deny that.
In talking about the importation of 30 million tonnes of coal, we are talking also of the livelihoods of 47,000 miners and 7,000 or 8,000 employees in complementary industries. It costs £24,700 to make a Yorkshire miner redundant, and the bill would be about £1·16 billion if 30 million tonnes of coal were imported. That would be a waste of human resources. Valuable manpower would be thrown on the scrap heap at great expense to the nation.
A parliamentary group visited South Africa to examine its coal mining industry. It was said that the aim of the February visit was to provide the delegation with a comprehensive insight of all issues related to the South African coal industry. The ultimate motive was thereafter about 47,000 mineworkers and 8,000 others as a result of sanctions, being introduced, in effect, against the coal industry. Those workers will suffer if we do not take action against South African imports. It is ironic that parliamentarians should seek to promote activities with South Africa when other civilised nations, including the United States, are breaking their links with that country. Association with South Africa is not welcomed by most democratic nations.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the cost of the rundown of manpower throughout the nation, to which he has referred, could be £559 million?

Mr. Cunliffe: I agree with rriy hon. Friend. I accept that figure.
The Opposition are attempting to protect and promote British interests. That has been our approach throughout. I accept that the ports are sited strategically and that coal is not the only consideration. I welcome any expansion of the ports and the economy in and around them. I am merely arguing that there should be some protection. By and large, Britain clings to the Queensberry rules, while other countries are subsidising their industries to the hilt, including the coal and steel industries. We are receiving their exports while it is argued that free marketers should be able to do exactly what they want within the market mechanism.
My colleagues and I are opposed to the procedural device that is before us. We shall take every opportunity to oppose unbounded commercialism in our effort to protect the British people.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall confine my remarks to the part of the Bill that is relevant to my constituency, including the port of King's Lynn. The provisions that relate to King's Lynn docks are entirely uncontroversial, much needed and welcomed, but perhaps it would have been better if they did not appear in the Bill. I have some sympathy with the views that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and some of his colleagues as well as the views of some of


my colleagues. Having said that, I hope that they understand the position in which I find myself. The part of the Bill that affects my constituency will have a crucial effect on the docks and the local economy in future.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill should be split into three separate measures: the first confined to the King's Lynn terminal, the second to the Port Talbot terminal and the third to the terminal on the Humber? In that way there would be less opposition on the Opposition Benches to the provisions that attach to the King's Lynn facilities.

Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. It is all very well being wise after the event; hut, if the Bill falls, the works in both King's Lynn and Port Talbot will fall as well. That is why I must press for the carry-over motion.

Mr. Harry Barnes: An opportunity has been presented for us to rethink. Rather than being tied to a Bill containing three elements, if we do not carry it over we shall be able to introduce three separate measures in the next session.

Mr. Bellingham: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but King's Lynn wants to get on with the work. It wants to put the business out to tender and start as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman, who clearly faces a dilemma. His sympathies seem to lie with my hon. Friends from the coal mining industry rather than with his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I assure him that if he opposed the carry-over motion, unlinked legislation affecting King's Lynn and Port Talbot could be introduced in January next year and it would receive no opposition from Labour Members. He would have his Bill much more quickly on that basis.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he was putting words into my mouth when he claimed that I was supporting Opposition Members. That is not strictly true. I said that I had some sympathy with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Leigh and others, but I also have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friends who are concerned about their local economies and are keen to promote business and expansion in their constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made some powerful points about why the carry-over should go ahead. The Committee on the Bill has been deliberating for some time, and if the motion were not passed much time and effort would be wasted. I should also like Opposition Members to understand what is happening in King's Lynn. It was once one of the country's busiest ports, ranked third in the national league. After many decades of decline in this century, it has now recorded a dramatic revival based on timber, grain and bulk commodities. It imports cars, tractors and motor bikes, and I am pleased to say that the export side is building up considerably as well.
In 1987 King's Lynn docks handled 1·5 million tonnes, and it is on target for a repeat performance this year. There are, however, numerous shortcomings. As I said when we

were discussing the same measure about three months ago, the docks are tidal; they are also enclosed. They are restricted to vessels of about 3,000 dead weight tonnes, 13·8 m in width and 120 m in length. A riverside quay is desperately needed. The works allowed for in the Bill would mean that the maximum would rise to 6,000 dead-weight tonnes, and the average would be about 4,500 tonnes. The maximum length of vessels would be 140 m and the maximum width 18 m. That would make a dramatic difference to the type of vessel able to enter King's Lynn docks, which in turn would have a considerable effect, on the tonnage going through the docks and on the importance of the port. The docks would be revolutionised and their future guaranteed. If the Bill does not go through existing competition from non-scheme ports will intensify.
It is ironic that Opposition supporters of the national dock labour scheme, are, by that support, making life difficult for ports such as King's Lynn. A group of non-scheme ports that have set up in East Anglia are able to compete in a number of ways, and that is putting considerable pressure on King's Lynn. If Opposition Members deny King's Lynn its expansion, I must consider the effects on my constituency, although I am mindful of the helpful comment made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
I should not be doing my duty if I did not vote for the motion. The local economy has gone from strength to strength: unemployment has fallen from 18 per cent. to 6·5 per cent., small firms are booming, and a whole new enterprise culture is afoot. The roads are improving and we are campaigning hard for railway electrification. Underpinning all that, however, is the success of the docks. If they are not allowed to thrive, expand and compete with non-scheme ports, that success story will be jeopardised. It would indeed be a tragedy if the motion were not passed.
Finally, let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Leigh. While I sympathise with his views on apartheid, I cannot agree with his views on sanctions. I recently went down Douglas and Ritspruit mines in South Africa and had a chance to talk to representatives of the South African mineworkers' union. They said that if comprehensive coal sanctions were applied, the black miners, not the white owners, would suffer most. Clearly there is a wish to do something about apartheid, but sanctions would lead to appalling misery.
I must support the motion, because, if it does not go through, there will be serious consequences for my constituency and its future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has been shedding crocodile tears about black people in South Africa. I suppose that he will make representations to all his friends with interests connected with South Africa and tell them to pay black workers decent wages—the same rates as are paid to whites. I wonder whether he did that when he went trotting off to South Africa, paid for by the South Africans.
It is interesting to note that the first two Conservative speakers have both come hotfoot from South Africa and that their visits were paid for. God knows how many more have done the same. I suppose that there are South African interests in the Under Gallery as well. The last time that we


debated this subject there were so many South Africans sitting there, interested in bringing coal into Britain, that it was busier than Waterloo station. They were trotting back and forth to talk to their Tory friends.
We know what the Bill is about. It was clear from the points of order that we heard earlier—during which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made your own enigmatic contribution, which might be interpreted differently according to where it was read out. This whippersnapper from Norfolk, North-West, before he told us that he had been on a paid trip to South Africa, kept telling us that he had some sympathy with the opposers of the carry-over motion. Then, when questioned closely by my hon. Friends, like Paddy Backdown he changed his mind in about five minutes and adopted an entirely different argument. I suspect that when he and his Friends, such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), have been to South Africa they have not just been on site visits. They are part of a Tory party that is almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of South Africa, and the Bill exemplifies that.
Another reason for my opposing the motion is that this is a mammoth Bill. It is not just one of your pottering little private Members' Bills that appear on the Order Paper every Tuesday and Thursday. This is a Bill which, according to my hon. Friends, has 19 byelaws. The byelaw in clause 21 gives this company the power to dump whatever rubbish it likes into the Humber.
Some of that rubbish will no doubt filter down towards Norfolk, North-West, and I suppose that the hooray Henry opposite, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, will come running to the House complaining. He will turn into one of those environment specimens that the Prime Minister has suddenly become. However, I must say that I cannot visualise this Prime Minister in a green anorak and sandals, talking about protecting the environment. I cannot see her sailing up the Humber on a Greenpeace ship looking for the rubbish—the oil and the chemicals—that will have been deposited by this firm if this carry-over motion is approved. I cannot visualise this faded blonde aboard a Greenpeace ship clearing up the rubbish.
We saw the Prime Minister in St. James's park, with the Secretary of State for the Environment on hand with a little bag, but I cannot see her on that Greenpeace ship clearing up the muck in the Humber. However, I can see her husband not far behind with an Attwoods flag in his hand—representing a waste disposal company of which he is the deputy managing director—running to this firm called Simon Engineering, which is a promoter of the Bill, and saying, "We will pick up some of the rubbish. 1 have Karen B just outside and we will take it provided that the money is right—and we will have a gin and tonic on it while we are at it." The Government have the cheek to talk about the environment, when hidden in this private Bill is the facility for this company to dump oil and chemicals.
I am against this carry-over motion, too, because of the point that I made on two previous occasions about the Chairman of the Committee. He has sat in the House. He was in the House on the last occasion that I raised this matter during business questions. I believe it is a scandal that the Tory party, having failed to put one of its South African Members—one of the hon. Members with interests in Johannesburg—on to this Committee, has found it necessary to make the Chairman of the Committee, who represents the Tory interest, none other

than the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). It may be that he did not want the job of Chairman of the Committee, but it stinks in the nostrils, because Simon Engineering, the promoter of the Bill, has a subsidiary which is a member of a trade association, the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, whose address is 1 Regent street—just up the road—and the hon. Member for Rochford is a paid parliamentary adviser to that association.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, I should advise him that in the light of his representations, Mr. Speaker had careful inquiries made into the allegations, which he is now repeating to some degree, and was satisfied that there was no degree of impropriety whatsoever.

Mr. Skinner: All I have to say is that there was never any chance of one of the Opposition Whips or representatives going along to members of the miners' group and saying, "We know that you are a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers. We are going to put you on this private Bill." I have a sneaking feeling that if that recommendation had gone to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection— another Tory, the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—he would have ruled it out of order. I repeat what I said earlier, that the Bill should have been stopped the moment that that Tory Member was allowed to go on that Committee and., even further, was made its Chairman.
History will record that this private Bill procedure has been rotten to the core from the moment that these two Bills hit the Floor of the House. It is no coincidence that they come from apartheid-ridden South Africa, which wishes to export coal to Britain, when the wages paid to black people are one seventh of those paid to white people who work in that ill-fated province. Botha's regime is represented right across the Tory party. I am fed up to the back teeth with hearing Tory Members saying, "We are against apartheid, but …" When they get the opportunity to bolster their interests in the Botha regime, by Christ they do it.
There was no better example of that than when the Prime Minister went belting through the Lobby on the last occasion, carrying well over 150 Tory Members with her, to get rid of jobs in Britain. By God, what a place it has become. Then the Tories stand up and talk about apartheid. They go trotting off to meetings here, there and everywhere, saying that they are against it, but on every possible occasion they pour money into the pockets of those who are depriving the massive majority of the population of votes.
They then have the cheek to tell us that they are worried about the blacks in the pits. They are not worried about the coal miners in Yorkshire, Durham, Derbyshire or even in the Nottinghamshire and the midlands coalfield—those who bailed out the Government during the 1984–85 strike. They used those miners in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and now they come along to the House and say, "We will pass a Bill and kick them out of their jobs"—all those people in the bosses' union.

Mr. Cunliffe: May I declare an interest? On the question of the Queensberry rules, on 6 October a South African ship called the Fasiline Avra arrived at Killingholme. It had on board 26,500 tonnes of South African coal. It was bought by William Reed of Solid


Fuels, associated with Simon Engineering, screened by Coalite and then sold to the CEGB by trickery and deception. That is the sort of tactic that we face. And then they plead for the African miner and the British miner, who are brothers in arms in the search for freedom.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman might get in eventually. The hon. Gentleman received a knighthood because he grovelled to that Front Bench. What a man. He reckoned to be protecting the interests of people in Cambridge who were going to knock hell out of the Government for about five minutes in 1986–87, but nearer to the election he went running a mile and someone said, "Shut your mouth and we will give you a knighthood." So he went and practised like Cyril Smith.

Sir Anthony Grant: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Get yourself down. What I am saying is that the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, because he knows the way to South Africa on a freebie. He knows how to get there for several days or several weeks. If the hon. Gentleman has not already been there, he can get on a trip. If his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes does not give him the advice, he should talk to his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, who will tell him how to get there. The hon. Gentleman has a multitude of friends in the Tory party who know the way to South Africa without putting their hands into their back pockets. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get away from the Prime Minister because he is fed up to the back teeth with her, he should ask them the way. He will be told and provided with the money.

Sir Anthony Grant: rose—

Mr. Skinner: No. I have some hon. Friends who want to speak when I have finished.

Sir Anthony Grant: I shall not be long.

Mr. Skinner: You want to be worried about the balance of payments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop referring to me.

Mr. Skinner: You are worried about the balance of payments. You are worried about unemployment in Doncaster if the Bill is passed and thousands of miners' jobs are lost in that area. You will be running along there with my hon. Friends from Doncaster trying to find the answers. I know that deep down at least—I might be stretching a point here—you know that everything that our people have had to say on this issue has been bang on the nail. You know only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this means a black day for British miners. It means that jobs will be lost.

Mr. Lofthouse: It means that 76,000 jobs will be lost.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) gave us that figure in a previous debate, and that is the total if we include the spin-off jobs.
Our mining industry adds about £500 million to the balance of payments. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the audacity to say that one of the reasons why the Government had been able to pay so much money in debt repayments was that they had saved £1,000 million because dole queues had decreased. We are opposing the carry-over motion because we do not want more people thrown on to the dole. The Bill will mean that more people will have to go to employment exchanges, and that will mean a loss of revenue—just the opposite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day. I have no doubt, however, that he will be telling his friends to turn up in the Lobby tonight.
This year we have a £13 billion balance of payments deficit and a massive manufacturing trade deficit, but here we are talking about giving commercial opportunities to South African and other foreign interests within the Common Market to launder coal through ports such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Coal will be brought into this country via those ports and will make our balance of payments deficit worse. Not only are the Government going to throw people out of work, but they are going to add to the £13 billion deficit that already exists.
If one considers why we have got into this mess with our balance of payments, it is clear to everyone that it is because our manufacturing industry has been decimated because our coal industry has been hammered, and because we are importing so much oil. We went through it all before in the 1950s and the 1960s. We warned the Tories about importing coal and running down our mining industry. Then the result was another balance of payments crisis. For a temporary period in our history, however, we have recently managed to overcome the problem as a result of North sea oil. Yet, here we are with North sea oil still available, but with a massive balance of payments deficit. The Bill will make matters worse. No wonder those in West Germany and Japan are laughing all the way to the bank. They are sitting on a $120 billion surplus between them, but we are getting further and further into the mire.
I am concerned about those miners and others who will be thrown out of work in Doncaster, Derbyshire, Durham, Nottinghamshire and the rest of the midland coalfields. Everyone should be concerned about that—my hon. Friends and I certainly are.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I believe that he voted with us on one occasion.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. My colleagues and I voted with him on 23 June. The hon. Gentleman is making an emotional address to the House. He is usually a fair man, and I think he should recognise that, on that night, only 63 people voted with him, 11 of them Tory Members. I do not believe that that suggests that there is strong support within the Labour party for opposition to the Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that to the House?

Mr. Skinner: It is quite simple. I am not the Chief Whip of the Labour party. We have never had a Whip on this Bill. Because of my emotions about the Bill, I believe that more of our people should have been there for that vote. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) will recall that, on the second


occasion, we doubled our numbers. I should like to think that on this occasion even more of my hon. Friends will be here, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that, unlike the Tories, we have not put a Whip on the Bill.
From the beginning the Tory party has not considered that the Bill represents narrow private interests. They have always seen it as a way in which to help South African interests. The Tories allowed the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to have a token vote against the Bill. Why? Because his constituency is part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and the Government wanted the people in the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to say, "We got our man to vote for us." The Tories allowed that in the knowledge that for every 10 people who voted with the Opposition, they could bring in another 50 to cancel those votes.

Mr. Redmond: I wonder whether we can clear up this matter of the Tory Whip once and for all. I wish that the Conservative Members present were honourable enough to tell the House that there is a two-line Whip on the Bill, because Tory Members who are not in the Chamber have told us that that is so. Are the Conservative Members present calling their colleagues liars? I would sooner believe their colleagues. It is true, because I have seen the agenda paper submitted by Conservative Whips.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He comes in early in the morning and, during the past few years, 1 have noticed how he has begun to get the feel of this place. He has got to know what is happening. I have seen him go down to that Tory side of the Tea Room where there is a little barrier. Initially I thought that he was just reading the papers, but I think that he has been hanging the tab. He has found out what has been going on. If he says that there is a two-line Whip, my guess is that—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to discuss factual information rather than opinion. I have a note from my Whip which says that there is Government business later tonight, for which I am needed as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, but that I am perfectly free to vote as I will on this Bill. I believe that that applies to everyone else on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Miss Boothroyd. Whether the hon. Gentleman has had permission from the Whips to vote freely one way or the other is not the issue. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the Tory Whips have put a two-line Whip on this Bill. Later on this evening, the Tories will come out of their rat holes to support the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reason why the hon. Member for Nottingham, South does not believe that there is a Whip is that he is one of the Conservative Members representing Nottinghamshire. He is that naive that he does not understand that the Tory party has issued a two-line Whip to everyone except those representing Nottinghamshire. The hon. Gentleman is not smart enough to understand that he is being left out. My hon. Friend sussed that out at the beginning. The Tories are kidding the hon. Member for Nottingham, South on.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Skinner: No, get off to the American embassy.
Another reason why we are against the Bill is that we know that it is a review to privatisation, not just of the coal mining industry, but of the electricity industry. Those are all sound political reasons for the Bill. Our argument is not about private Bills, but about political will and the Government wanting to help their own interests. They want to line the pockets of those who have connections with South Africa. The purpose of the Bill is to bring in coal from South Africa, and that will lead to British pits being closed down. As a result, more people will be on the dole and we shall have a bigger balance of payments problem.
The Bill has been an abuse of parliamentary procedure from beginning to end. Every Member on the Labour Benches is opposing this carry-over motion. That opposition does not come only from my hon. Friends who represent the mining industry, but also from those who represent the docks industry. We know that jobs will be lost because of the Bill. We want to save jobs and we want to save money. We also want to ensure that the procedures of the House are not abused in the way in which they have been on this occasion.

Mr. Andy Stewart: This debate gives Members a further opportunity to highlight the dangers to our coal industry if the proposed Humber ports are allowed to proceed. Before proceeding with arguments against the motion, I should like to say that when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) denigrated the Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), he did not help our case one bit.
The widespread fear about the Bill is that the new ports will allow the United Kingdom market to be flooded with imports of subsidised coal, much of it possibly dumped on the market. If that took place, it could have a severe effect on the British coal industry, leading to colliery closures.
The supporters of the Bill have told the House of its virtues in job creation, cheaper coal and cheaper electricity, but they have omitted to tell us for how long those conditions will apply. Is it one year, five years or more? Have their memories dimmed so much that they have forgotten the cartel hype in oil prices in 1973, 1979, and 1981, and the fact that our only protection from international blackmail at that time was our coal industry, giving predictable prices to its major buyers in the short and longer term, which no importer of coal will give or can contemplate, considering the fluctuating value of the dollar?
Today's world market coal prices are 40 per cent. higher than a year ago. Since I spoke on Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill on 11 May, prices have risen by 15 per cent—in all, equivalent to a £10 per tonne increase. Therefore, before the House makes an irreversible decision, we should let the past be a guide to the future. It tells us two important facts: first, that indigenous supplies must be available at all times; and, secondly, that they should be at known prices and with fixed long-term contracts. We shall have neither of those things if the ports are built, giving unscrupulous foreign coal producers the opportunity within six months to decimate the industry, with premature colliery closures.
Apart from the human tragedy of job losses, that would liquidate without return the billions of pounds invested on behalf of the British taxpayer in the coal industry.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman referred to unscrupulous importers. He will be aware that in the past 12 months a substantial quantity of coal has been imported to this country, labelled as Dutch coal produced in the Netherlands. The hon. Gentleman will know well that there are no collieries in the Netherlands and that that coal imported into Britain that is described as Dutch is actually South African. As he has perceived that there is unscrupulous conduct, will the hon. Gentleman join us in asking the Minister to respond to the point that unscrupulous and probably unlawful behaviour has already taken place? Our opposition to the Bill would discourage unscrupulous operators from further dishonesty.

Mr. Stewart: I had better make it clear what I said. I referred to unscrupulous foreign coal producers. There is a difference. One must be careful not to lump all importers into the group that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, the Minister was listening to what the hon. Gentleman said.
I can hear our opponents saying, "So what? British Coal has caused enough trouble in the past 15 years with three strikes, vast expenditure of taxpayers' money and a dangerous exposure of elected Governments to extraparliamentary pressure." It is a straightforward question which deserves a straightforward answer. Those days are behind us for good and the coal industry is back on the road to being a modern and respectable business. The central policy at the heart of everything that British Coal has been doing is the judgment that, if it is to survive, the coal delivered to its United Kingdom customers must match the sustainable price of international coal delivered to United Kingdom users. "Sustainable" means the price that could reasonably remunerate new investment in favourable geological conditions in exporting countries.
The other half of the equation is about bringing our costs down to meet international coal prices as they come back into balance. The transformation in British Coal since the strike is remarkable. The latest productivity figure is up 74 per cent. and our costs are down by over 30 per cent. in real terms. The last time British Coal increased its prices in line with inflation was at the start of 1981. With a further price freeze that means that, in real terms, coal prices will be over 25 per cent. down on four years ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman mentioned all the wonderful achievements in the coal industry, which we are all pleased about. The price of coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board is about £42 a tonne compared with £20 to £28 a tonne for imports of coal subsidised by foreign Governments. If that continues, how can we hope to compete?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I shall vote against the motion. Within six months, some of our marginal collieries could be closed. Perhaps it will lead to job losses. However, the British coal

industry and those who work in it are taking steps to enable us to compete with that imported coal, but not at subsidised prices.
From that experience, it is now possible to look forward to the final stage of the transformation of British Coal. By 1990, British deep-mined coal will compete well with any imported coal, but will it be allowed fair and unfettered competition? I believe not, because the stakes are too high for the exporting countries to allow the British coal industry the time to complete its transformation. For me, the risks not only to the Nottinghamshire and other coalfields, but to those who work in the industry, particularly the 27,000 in Nottinghamshire, are too great. Therefore, I ask the Houe to reject the motion.

Mr. Alan Meale: I take great pride in being called to speak against this bad Bill. It is important to consider the effect on Nottinghamshire if the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill proceeds through the House.
One of the primary reasons why we should not carry the Bill over into the next Session is that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is racist. If any Conservative Member doubts that, he should recall the words of a South African Prime Minister, who said that every £1 invested in South Africa was another brick in the wall of apartheid. That will happen if the Bill proceeds. Without any shadow of a doubt, that has been one of the prime motivations for the Bill because if the ports proceed, imported South African coal will take over British Coal's market in the United Kingdom. The Bill seeks purely to secure a major trade route for imported coal into Britain, particularly South African coal. It seeks to undermine current port capacity and takes no account of the effect on the coalfield communities.
Both these private Bills represent purely commercial interests and should not have been taken in the manner in which they have been treated. They will undermine the national interest, with our future dependence on the importation of foreign coal. The Conservative party has a great belief in privatisation. We should remember that the Bills will greatly devalue national assets. We still have many decades of coal supplies left. The value of coal mines, with their plant and machinery and the investments that are being made, will be vastly reduced if the Bills are enacted. Most important of all are the mining communities that have invested their lives in the British coal mining industry.
I should like to refer to an article, which was passed to me recently, that concerns South African coal imports. The article appeared in "SA Coal Insight" and gives a detailed account of the visit made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). The article says:
The aim of this February visit was to provide the delegation with a comprehensive insight into all the issues related to the South African Coal Industry. The ultimate motive was to explain the threat that exists to 30,000 mine workers and 8,000 associated workers through the imposition of sanctions against the coal industry.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what will happen to the British coal mining industry. Should we not be concerned about that? Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the 76,000 jobs in the mining communities— 50,000 directly in coal mining and 26,000 in subsidiary areas. Those jobs are not in the affluent south, but in the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland, which already have high levels of unemployment.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) ought to notify miners in his constituency that the Central Electricity Generating Board's figures show that, of the 19 pits in Nottinghamshire, nine will close? He should tell them that his own Government are pushing through Bills that, if successful, will lead to the closure of nine pits in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Meale: To add to what my hon. Friend has just said, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the unemployment figures for the Mansfield area—which covers Sherwood and parts of Ashfield. Because of Government policies that have been pursued since 1979, there is considerable idle labour in Mansfield. At the moment, 6,224 men and 2,188 women remain idle, so there are now 8,412 people who are unemployed because of the Government's policies. As a result of the Government's trade policy and their inability to act in the textile industry, the largest knitwear manufacturing base in the EEC announced its closure two weeks ago, and a further 850 jobs will disappear.
Let us consider the unemployment figures elsewhere. In Nottinghamshire, 47,500 people are unemployed, in Leicestershire, where there are also coal mines, 25,668 are unemployed, and in Derbyshire the figure is 38,275. The total unemployed in those areas is about 112,000.
The Bills will have a considerable effect on the Nottinghamshire pits. Already, 50 million tonnes of the coal produced in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire goes directly to power stations in the area. It has already been explained that, if the ports are developed, the CEGB will purchase South African and other imported coal. According to the Select Committee on Energy, in the first year, the West Burton area power stations will use 500,000 tonnes of imported coal and in the third year, the figure will he 8 million tonnes. That will lead to 15 pit closures out of the 18 remaining pits in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Michael Welsh: There is another point to be added. If cheap coal comes from South Africa, does it not mean that British Coal will be unable to plan new investment and that investment in new pits will stop because British pits will not have the chance to supply coal? A pit is not like a factory—it cannot close and then open again. The critical path is 10 to 15 years. Therefore one must plan ahead. We shall lose millions of pounds as a nation because of cheap coal. The importers will have their hands on the tap and will be able to turn it on or off to suit themselves, as the oil producers did in the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. Meale: That is absolutely true. I also draw that point to the attention of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. Members from Nottinghamshire who have turned up to vote against the Bills, and I thank them for coming here.
All the pits in Nottinghamshire that supply power stations will be affected. Blidworth colliery supplies 51 per cent. of its coal direct to power stations, Calverton supplies 80 per cent., O11erton 87 per cent., Thoresby 93 per cent., Creswell 95 per cent., Harworth 97 per cent., Bilsthorpe 98 per cent. and Silverhill 98 per cent. One hundred per cent. of the production at Bevercotes, Cotegrave, Sherwood, Welbeck and Clipstone goes directly to power stations. As the hon. Member for

Sherwood knows, six of the pits that I have mentioned have been included, in the past few days, in the review procedure that British Coal is carrying out in the Nottinghamshire area.

Mr. Andy Stewart: That is entirely untrue. The review procedures are not those that the hon. Gentleman has come across before. They are the normal discussions that take place every three months in those collieries. I investigated the matter on Monday, and I was given that assurance by British Coal and the trade unions.

Mr. Meale: I hope that those assurances are better than the ones that I and other hon. Members have received in the past from British Coal in Nottinghamshire. Undoubtedly, the decision whether to keep open some of those collieries in the near future will be influenced by whether the Bills are passed tonight rather than being carried over into the next Session. Areas such as Mansfield, Bolsover, Chesterfield and parts of south Yorkshire will be faced with utter turmoil and destruction unless the Bills are defeated this evening.

Mr. Bellingham: Can the hon. Gentleman say with his hand on his heart that the evidence is that there will be a big increase in the volume of imported coal? If the market were able to accept such volumes, it would surely have done so already, as reasonably good facilities exist. What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have?

Mr. Meale: I wish that that hon. Gentleman had listened when I referred to the report of the Select Committee on Energy. The CEGB in the West Burton power station group will take 500,000 tonnes in the first year, 2 million tonnes in the second and 8 million tonnes in the third. That will lead to the closure of some of the pits in Nottinghamshire.
If the hon. Gentleman wants other examples, I draw his attention to the imports that are already coming in and to one of the companies that is involved in these Bills—Van Ommeron, the Dutch company which imported into Europe 5·8 million tonnes of South African coal last year, of which 2·9 million tonnes came directly into the United Kingdom. Every tonne of coal that comes into this country puts British mining jobs at risk; no hon. Member can dispute that.
I remember asking the hon. Member for Johannesburg in the previous debate whether he had ever held any position or received any gift from any of the companies involved in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question was directed to me. I am the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to me.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make that clear. I call Mr. Meale.

Mr. Meale: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the past 12 months and more, I have heard the hon. Gentleman's references to South Africa many times, so I automatically assumed that he represented Johannesburg. I apologise for that.

Mr. Michael Brown: I was asked why I should be promoting the Bills and what my relationship was with


Associated British Ports and the promoters of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. I have no position, and I derive not a penny from either company, although I have to admit that I was given lunch at the headquarters of Associated British Ports, when we discussed whether it would be proper for me to sponsor the Bill. The simple reason for my sponsoring the Bills is that the major works involved in both are to take place in my constituency. I would say to my constituents and to members of political parties outside the House that I hope that if there were ever a Labour or a Liberal Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes, he too would promote such Bills.

Mr. Meale: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he accepted a free trip to South Africa. That raises the question whether it is ethical for an hon. Member to accept such a gift when he is a member of a Committee of the House that is discussing related issues. That is the moral question that the House will have to consider, and I only hope that it will make the right decision.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The passion felt by Labour Members is clearly not matched by a willingness to put their time and their votes where their words suggest they should. Their opposition may make very good copy for the press and the media as it did in June, but that is about the limit. Words are enough as long as they appear in the paper— [Interruption.] Opposition Members' criticism is that there is an organised lobby. You must look into your own hearts to make up your own minds.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Chair.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members must look into their own hearts and consciences and decide whether their conduct in June matched the passion of their speeches.
As part of the debate about carrying over consideration of the Bills, I think that it is relevant to remind the House that the vote in June was no late-night vote on a Thursday, when one could perhaps have forgiven Scottish and other Labour Members for catching the sleeper home. The vote was taken at 8.29 pm. At that time, early in the evening, only 63 hon. Members voted against Second Reading and 11 were Conservative Members. I shall not waste the time of the House by reading out the list, but I suggest that the absence of the other 150 Labour Members should be a matter of shame for them.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the hon. Gentleman also inform the Nottinghamshire newspapers that the Government shoved the measure through by the payroll vote?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is one of the defences that Labour Members have put around to try to cover their tracks on that disgraceful affair.
That night, to my certain knowledge, three Conservative Members who voted against Second Reading were Parliamentary Private Secretaries. They had a clear undertaking that the Government took no position and that they were perfectly free to vote as they chose. There is no way that the Government can be accused of wheeling out the payroll vote.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on a conversation that took place between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in the Tea Room earlier today? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was asked about the whipping arrangements for this business and said, "It is whipped but we are supposed to be keeping that quiet." It is a two-line Whip for Ministers, is it not?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) can speak for himself, although it is fair to say that if one is sponsoring a private Bill, one will use every method in one's power to get the minimum 100 people into the Chamber. I know that my hon. Friend was almost soiling his pants in June because, if the debate had gone on for another 15 or 20 minutes, Conservative Members who did not have strong views would already have been on their way home and he would not have succeeded in getting the closure motion passed. Only 95 Conservative Members voted for Second Reading 15 minutes after the closure motion was passed. That proves the point that the Tories had begun to go home. The greater shame was that only 35—

Mr. Hardy: Humbug.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is true. The record shows that only 35 voted against, and 11 of those were Conservative Members. That seems to suggest that only 20 passionate supporters of the coal industry on the Labour Benches bothered to stay later than 8.30 pm that night.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of those Labour Members present tonight were not among that number? Is that not extraordinary?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) give way?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes. I agree to give way, but we shall go on all night at this rate.

Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman grant that Parliament is not just about going through the Lobbies? It is about debate. Debate is supposed to be an important part of our proceedings, especially in connection with private Bills, as hon. Members may be persuaded by such debate. On the Conservative Benches, the debate has involved the four hon. Members who have spoken tonight, the Minister and the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). The Labour Benches have been full of hon. Members who have wished to involve themselves in the debate but who have been prevented from doing so by the pressure of time. At the end of each of the five debates, Labour Members have been jumping to their feet seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is also worth pointing out that only one senior Minister was here that night in June. Of course the House is about debate. Labour Members must surely concede that the understandable passion displayed in June—and again tonight, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)— should have been matched by action and that more than 20 Labour Members should have bothered to stay behind to defend the mining industry. That is a matter of shame for Labour Members. Certainly you may—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the Chair.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Members may criticise Conservative Members for voting to give the Bill its Second Reading, but a substantial number of Conservative Members want free enterprise. They want competition from imports and argue that the lower electricity prices that will ensue will be better for other industries, which might create more jobs. Those are the arguments advanced by Conservative Members in favour of the Bill. For all the debate and for all the arguments and passion from the Labour Benches, only 20-odd Labour Members bothered to be there to vote in June. That is a matter of shame.
Throughout the debates on these Bills, the South African connection has damaged the Opposition's case more than it has helped it. I understand the arguments about the Dutch connection. It always puzzles me to hear from Opposition Members that ours is the only country in Europe which is sympathetic to South Africa; they go on to say that the Dutch are sending us relabelled South African coal. That seems a little contradictory. I remind the House of the careful and well reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who said that South African coal is of minor consequence and is not the main argument used by those of us who oppose the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, the real threat is from opencast coal from Colombia, Australia and China, which is to be sold as a means of earning hard currency—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because of sanctions, South Africa has been losing 9 million or 10 million tonnes a year in sales? Somehow those losses must be made up—hence these coal Bills, which are designed to create another market for South African coal.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am not disputing whether we should import coal from South Africa. I acknowledge the arguments on both sides. My point is that Conservative Members representing Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire believe that South African coal is a minor part of our opposition to the Bill. The greater threat of imports is from Colombia, Australia and China, and we should be concentrating on that.
I understand the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) about racism, but I am trying to leave that out of the debate—

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should understand racism.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: —and not for the reason given by that silly man. I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but Conservative Members are being criticised and personally insulted for not going along with the knee-jerk reactions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who calls us pro-South African.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that tempers are running high on this matter, but hon. Members should be addressed correctly.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me in scathing terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) talked about racism. We know that the black South African workers support sanctions. They are poor people, hounded into compounds, who produce cheap coal with which our miners cannot possibly compete. If the hon. Gentleman supports that system but denies that it is racist, let him square that with his conscience.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not seek to deny or challenge any of those points, but by focusing almost exclusively on the importation of South African coal, via Rotterdam or anywhere else, Opposition Members undermine the case we are trying to make.
Conservative Members have other reasons—

Mr. Flannery: Additional reasons.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Granted, but the main thrust of our argument is that Colombian, Australian and Chinese coal will enter this country. That is why we oppose the Bill; the South African connection may be an additional reason for opposition. In speech after speech, Opposition Members have attempted to make a virility symbol of their attitudes to South Africa, which undermines their case—

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am a little confused about the hon. Gentleman's reference to Colombia, a country in which there is a human rights crisis. Fewer than six lawyers are left to defend trade unionists there. Would you expound on that a little?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should address her remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I cannot comment on that point, but the hon. Lady is making my case for me. The position of labour in Colombia is appalling, which is why its coal is priced far below a sum that could be called the result of fair pricing. British Coal is faced with unfair competition from Colombian coal. That is why I oppose the Bill and hope that enough hon. Members will enter the No Lobby to ensure that it is not passed.

Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) concentrated his arguments on the shortcomings of Opposition Members who have not voted against the Bill after previous debates. I remind him that he must also criticise Conservative Members who support the Bill in spite of all the things that he has said. They support unfair competition and apartheid coal from South Africa. They support the running down of British Coal and an increase in unemployment. They support the waste of capital investment by British Coal in this country. The hon. Gentleman should criticise his hon. Friends for that support.
We base our opposition on the impact that the proposals will have on, and their economic consequences for, our constituencies. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) spoke of the Bill's importance to King's Lynn and reminded us that in a previous debate he had said that the Bill would generate about 100 jobs in his constituency. I commend the hon. Gentleman for promoting the interests of his constituents,


even though unemployment in his area is only 6·5 per cent., but I remind him that we in the mining communities suffer from unemployment that is three times as high.
In Hemsworth, unemployment is currently 18 to 20 per cent. Historically, the constituency has depended on coal mining. This week British Coal announced that 1,000 more mining jobs are at risk, on top of the 11,000 that have been lost in Wakefield metropolitan district area in the past five years. So the South African connection must not be seen in isolation from its direct consequences for people in our constituencies, who will suffer if the Bill is passed.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware of the consequences for the mining engineering supplies industry, which is still a major employer in my constituency? So far this year, 253 jobs have been destroyed in that industry. Does he agree that it is a disgrace and a gross misuse of Parliament that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) should represent the interests of a Fascist regime, so helping to create jobs and assist economic development in that Fascist regime at the expense of places such as Wakefield?

Mr. Buckley: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Reference has been made to this measure allowing 10 million tonnes of coal to be imported, possibly making 40,000 miners redundant, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has added another dimension by drawing attention to the knock-on effect on the mining engineering supplies industry.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the general multiplier is three, and that if the jobs of 40,000 miners are at stake, that means the total number at risk will be about 120,000, as jobs in the service and supply industries will also disappear? Unquestionably, some of them will be in the small firms about which the Tories are supposed to be concerned. Nevertheless, Conservative Members intend voting in a way that will squash those small firms.

Mr. Buckley: I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
This matter is not only political; it affects the country's economy. The Bill will be to the detriment not only of mining communities, such as Hemsworth, but of other areas of the country, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. The Prime Minister persistently claims that she and her Government are backing Britain, whereas they are undermining the British economy, and the mining industry in particular, by obtaining the approval of the House for this Bill. There seems to be a conflict of policy because the Government appear to be pursuing a line that will jeopardise our mining industry in the not-too-distant future.
One of the problems confronting British Coal is that it was encouraged by numerous Governments to undertake high investment in order to improve bulk output. As a consequence of the run-down in manpower, that investment has become increasingly critical. At the point where that investment is about to provide the bulk coal that our country requires, the Government, with this Bill, will provide facilities that will vastly increase coal imports.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is this not the point to distinguish between the arguments advanced from the Government Benches and those made by the Opposition? I represent a constituency where there is an Associated British port, but I am not looking to make that argument tonight.
My hon. Friends have questioned the validity of the introduction of the Bill. It has wide implications for and will influence a number of industries. We are arguing the broader case for the mining industry. Conservative Members make only the narrow argument —respected though it may be at some time—for constituency interests rather than for the broader interests that we represent.

Mr. Buckley: I take my hon. Friend's point.
It ill behoves Conservative Members to criticise the lack of Opposition support for this measure. The question is whether Conservative Members are prepared to support a general view rather than the narrow one of those who are promoting the Bill.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Buckley: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will be able to make his comments later.

Mr. Brown: No, I shall not, as I have already spoken.

Mr. Buckley: As the hon. Gentleman has already made his points, he must give me an opportunity to comment on the Bill that he is sponsoring. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the conventions of the House. He must give others an opportunity to make their points.
The argument is so wide that it will have far-reaching consequences beyond the economics of mining communities. Local authorities, for example, will also feel the consequences, as they will suffer a loss of revenue resulting from colliery closures. Local authorities' economics will also be undermined by the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: Will it not also undermine British Coal's economics? One of the obligations revealed during the miners' strike was that the recovery and rehabilitation of colliery sites is a continuing cost against British Coal's revenue. Colliery closures will compound the situation, as it will make the price per tonne extracted from the remaining pits even higher.

Mr. Buckley: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The House should not take lightly the economic consequences of these two Bills being carried over to the next Session. They will be dramatic and devastating for mining communities and for the country as a whole.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I may inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you missed a first-class contribution earlier this evening from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Madam Deputy Speaker: I may tell the hon. Member that I did listen to it.

Mr. Haynes: Obviously, I hit the wrong mark.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover hit every nail on the head. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will listen. He is busy gasbagging to the Whip instead of listening to this


important and serious debate on whether the ports should be allowed to continue and to expand at the expense, probably, of the mining industry.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I have only just started—sit down!
I want to say right at the outset that I am opposed to the proposal to carry over into the next Session the two private Bills that we are debating. I am opposed for a number of reasons.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has got it wrong. He does not understand what is going on. He will vote with us tonight, but he does not understand what is going on. He has not worked in the mining industry. He has pushed a plough, tilling the land in the north of Nottinghamshire. I admit that I know nothing about farming, but I know something about coal mining and I know what we are talking about tonight.
The hon. Member for Sherwood came to this place in 1983 after serving for a short period on Nottinghamshire county council organising swings and roundabouts for kids. That is the work he has done out there in Nottinghamshire. That was his only interest—leisure.

Mr. Andy Stewart: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, I will not give way.
In days, months and years gone by, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has regularly told the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box about the money that has been poured into the farmers' pockets, and that is still going on.

Mr. Skinner: On average, £13 a week for every farmer in Britain.

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has made his contribution, although he made a mess of it. He did not say the right things because he does not understand. He is a groveller too.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the truth.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Haynes) would refer to the motion.

Mr. Haynes: I am trying hard to, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Sherwood need not wave his hand at me. I shall say what I want to say in this debate. We recently debated Health Service charges that will affect many miners in my constituency who have worked in the pits for as many years as I have and were trying to enjoy certain social security benefits.

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Haynes: That was the end result of what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) did last week—I shall drag him in as well—when both voted in favour of Health Service charges. They then told the Nottingham Evening Post, "We had to do it. We might have lost our jobs as Parliamentary Private Secretaries."

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Ashfield once more that the carry-over motion relates to a particular Bill and I hope that he will respect the wishes of the Chair and relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Haynes: I shall try to do so. I was provoked by the hon. Member for Sherwood and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South—well, one of them anyway.
I am opposed to the carry-over motion simply because of the effect that it will have in my constituency in particular and elsewhere, such as Bolsover, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Yorkshire. It will have a serious effect in Yorkshire. No Conservative Member has mentioned Yorkshire. This will have a serious effect on the Yorkshire coal mining industry and that hon. Gentleman from—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed to hon Members before this evening. While I am in the Chair, hon. Members will be referred to correctly.

Mr. Haynes: —the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. You did not let me finish, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My hearing is as acute as my eyesight.

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, I shall not give way. Other colleagues of mine want to speak. The hon. Gentleman is not going to cover for those Conservatives who are not here. Plenty of Opposition Members want to speak in this debate.
I shall be interested to hear what the new Minister of State has to say on this. He has not spoken at the Dispatch Box on this matter before.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister of State is not going to speak.

Mr. Haynes: I did not know that the Minister did not intend to respond to the debate. I am shocked. What is he doing here, if he is not going to respond?

Mr. Hardy: I share my hon. Friend's concern that the Minister is not going to respond. For months and months on private Bills, Ministers have unfailingly risen to the Dispatch Box to announce the Government's absolute neutrality. We have then watched Conservative Members trooping through the Aye Lobby. Will we be saved from that rather preposterous and frequent precedent that has been established? Will the Minister at least intervene, if only briefly, to explain the matter of the false labelling of South African coal coming into British ports, as we fear that South African coal will continue to be brought into the new ports?

Mr. Haynes: I appears that the Minister is not going to respond to my hon. Friend, but I am not going on about that. The Minister has made it pretty obvious that he is not going to respond.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: No, I am not giving way. Sit down. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Haynes.

Mr. Haynes: I am entitled to make a speech. I have been called by the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech; he must sit down and listen to what is going on.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that he will agree that it is a great pity that the Minister will not reply to the debate. For example, the Minister could have outlined the difficulties which the Bills will create for the coal industry, for the engineering supply industry, and for the railway industry, as they will encourage the closures which the Tories have lined up anyhow.

Mr. Haynes: My serious worry is that there used to be nine pits in my constituency, and there are now four. It has been agreed that one of those pits is closing next year, and now we are having a review. The hon. Member for Sherwood does not understand what goes on in a review as far as the bosses in the mining industry are concerned.
I have been in the mining industry 35 years. My hon. Friends have served in that industry for many years and they know what a review is all about. They have been officials at pit level, they have been involved in negotiations, and they have tried to persuade the board not to go in the direction that it wanted to take. The hon. Member for Sherwood does not understand what is going on. There is another review and there will be further pit closures in Nottinghamshire if we are not very careful, and if British Coal has its way.
The hon. Gentleman may wag his head but he still does not know what is going on. If British Coal decides to close the pits, there will be serious opposition from Opposition Members and in the constituencies where those pits are, yet the Bill does not help the situation at all—it makes it worse, as my hon. Friends have said. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible vote against it.

Mr. Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice on an important question? When an hon. Member makes disparaging remarks about another hon. Member and comments adversely on his conduct and knowledge, surely it is incumbent on that hon. Member to give way when the hon. Member who is being criticised and attacked stands up?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Member's point of order. It is for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether he gives way. Usually, in a challenge such as that, hon. Members give way, but it is entirely for the hon. Member who has the Floor to determine whether he will do that.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I have been following the proceedings very carefully, and I have noticed your very good-tempered conduct of the House. My hon. Friend's speech was continuously marred by Conservative Members standing up and shouting. Therefore, I hope that you will suitably deprecate the behaviour of these lager louts, these pin-striped hooligans—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been as attentive as he usually is, he would have seen that I am very keen to ensure that hon. Members who are not being given the floor are asked to resume their seats.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is important that we stress the fact that we are debating the coal industry along with the Bill. We are debating one of Britain's biggest assets in energy—coal. We have more coal in this country than we have oil or gas. There are 300 years of coal supplies in this country. From the way in which the Government are trying to import foreign coal, one would think that we had no coal at all. Also, one would not realise that since the miners' strike the miners have increased their productivity by at least 60 per cent.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Seventy-four per cent.

Mr. Campbell: That is even better. One would not think that while listening to Conservative Members.
The Government are importing coal from countries such as Poland, South Africa, China, Colombia, Venezuela, Indonesia and others. I would hazard a guess that not one of those countries is stable. Yet the Government want to bring in 30 million tonnes of coal, with the loss of many miners' jobs. It means that in the northern region—it is on record—there will be only two pits left. This is not the only Bill. We know that there will be more to come. We know that Bills affecting Teesside and Southampton are due. We know that the coal will come to Britain at the whim of countries such as South Africa—and we have all heard about apartheid.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) may have had a pleasant trip to South Africa, but, if he is so concerned about his constituency, he should visit the areas that will lose jobs, particularly Nottingham. He should go with his hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and visit a pit and tell the miners what he is trying to achieve in this Bill.
As well as being at the mercy of the unstable countries, we are at the mercy of the dollar. If the dollar falls or rises, the price of foreign coal becomes unstable. That is a problem that the Government have to sort out, but they cannot.
We know that the pits will close because Tory Members will troop through the Lobbies tonight. They have a two-line Whip. Several hon. Members have been excused so that they can go back to their constituencies and say that they did not vote for the Bill— [Interruption.] It is true.
This progressive and most radical Government—that is what they call themselves—will close the pits and see thousands of miners lose their jobs and thousands of communities hurt yet again. I went through the review with my pit. I won the review, but the Government still closed the pit.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The collieries mentioned in the local evening paper last week are not in the review. It is the local three-monthly review, endorsed by British Coal and the local trade unions.

Mr. Campbell: If they are not in the review now, it wil not be long before they are. That will happen when the coal starts to come into the country and when the men from Associated British Ports get cracking on other ports. That is the danger.
My constituency held the record for exporting coal to Europe in the 1950s, but there is talk of changing the


harbour to receive coal from abroad. We have heard about bringing coals to Newcastle. The Government are certainly doing that.
The Government are decimating the coal industry. It has been said by some Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that miners have to stand on their own two feet. The Government are saying to British miners, "Stand on your own two feet while we bring in cheap coal." The importation of cheap coal will destroy our mining industry. Closing a pit is not like closing a factory. Some Conservative members think that a coal mine is a factory that can be stopped by pressing a button. They think that after a couple of years another button can be pressed and the pit will start up again. Once a mine is closed, it is finished and cannot be opened again.
If our mining industry is destroyed, coal prices will be at the whim of the countries that I have mentioned, such as South Africa and China. Those countries will do what the Arabs did in the 1950s. At that time the Arabs were living in tents and had cheap oil for export. Britain's whole economy was built on cheap oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke about that. I remember what happened in the 1950s when the Arabs decided that they no longer wanted to live in tents. Oil prices rocketed. As soon as our mining industry has been destroyed, foreign producers will push up their prices and we shall he at the beck and call of the countries that I have mentioned.
The Prime Minister was in Poland last week. What a country to rely on for coal! She was hardly out of the country when Lech Walesa called for a general strike. There will be more strikes there, yet the Government seek to rely on coal from that part of Europe. Coal comes to the spot market and is mixed. The mixture is described as coal from the Netherlands, but we know that it is a mixture of Polish and South African coal and coal from other countries. It is all dumped and then mixed and sold as Netherlands coal.
In my maiden speech a year ago, I said that the Government were out to wreck the coal industry. Perhaps they are trying to do that out of malice. I have the gut feeling that they want to destroy the coal industry. They should heed the warning given by the Opposition in this debate. They risk severe economic problems not only because of imported coal but because industry will have to pay higher prices for coal. I gave that warning in my maiden speech and I give it again. The Government will decimate the British coal industry at their peril. The Prime Minister is directing that destruction, and she is wrong.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Like my hon. Friends, I oppose the motions which would allow the two private Bills to go into the next Session. There are numerous reasons why the Bills should be withdrawn or discontinued. Some of them have already been given in this debate and others were given on Second Reading.
On Second Reading I asked about the identity of the promoters of the Bills. The matter was raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) who is in the Chamber. He said that he could not identify the company promoting the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Throughout the following debates, and to some extent in Committee, no light has been thrown on the identity of the company. In

Committee the issue appears to have been clouded even further by the introduction of the names of other companies connected with the Bills.
Two companies recently mentioned in connection with the Bills are the Killingholme Wharf Company and the Immingham Storage Company. Apparently these are subsidiaries of the Central Oil Refinery Company. We are led to believe that it is a promoter because it is named in the Bill. Those companies are subsidiaries of the Chemicals and Oil Storage Management Company, which in turn is a subsidiary of Simon Storage Group Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Simon Engineering and members of the Simon Group. The Simon Group is a massive multi-million pound company that obviously has interests in all manner of things. Added to that, we have heard that there is a partnership involved—a partnership between the various companies that I have just mentioned and a company called B.V. Schieveem, a Dutch company, which in turn is a subsidiary of a company by the name of Van Ommeron UK, which is a subsidiary of Van Ommeron Ceteco.
These are just a few of the companies whose names have been linked with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, either as promoters or subsidiaries of promoters. I understand from my reading of the Committee proceedings that still further companies are involved in the Bill. It is extremely difficult to keep track of all the companies, particularly as only two of them are mentioned in the Bill. I suggest that both the Bills should not be carried over into the next Session until the House receives some information as to the exact identity of the promoters, some exact reference to their relationship with other companies involved in the promotion of the Bill, and some identification of the foreign element and foreign input in the Bill, which is not even mentioned. Nowhere in the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill is Van Ommeron mentioned. I venture the opinion that the promoters of the Bill are happy to maintain that confusion.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman has referred to confusion, which I freely concede occurred in Committee one day last week. If he wants to be sure about the full reason why there was that confusion, all he has to do is to get hold of a transcript of the proceedings of last Thursday, and he will see a statement by the promoters' principal witness which clearly shows, certainly to the satisfaction of the Committee, exactly what happened. A number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends were in the Public Gallery with me. It was a straightforward matter that was put before the Committee.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) prejudge what the Committee will decide unless he is privy to information that I do not have?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is to do with the debate, not the Chair.

Mr. Illsley: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I have considered the Committee proceedings in some detail and tried to elicit the true identity of the companies involved. I believe that I am getting closer and closer, but every day more and more companies are introduced. The Bills are unclear about the identity of the companies involved and


silent about the international involvement, so perhaps they should be taken away and redrafted, either next Session or in a later Session, so that this information can be provided.

Mr. Michael Welsh: We still cannot find out who is the owner. Are we to allow a compulsory purchase order to be applied when we do not know who desires it?

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill seeks to grant not only powers of compulsory purchase but powers to dump into the River Humber. Furthermore, the power to delegate those powers to successor companies is to be granted. The Bill is designed to allow the company at the end of the chain to disguise its operation completely and to hide its intentions regarding the works on the River Humber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred earlier to the Chairman of the Committee. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is in his place, as he is the Chairman of the Committee. However, he is also the parliamentary consultant to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have now called into question the integrity of one of my colleagues who, by parliamentary convention, is unable to rise in his own defence. My hon. Friend, who fought Ilkeston a few years ago, was born and brought up in Nottinghamshire and is sympathetic to many of the comments made by Nottinghamshire colleagues on this side of the House, so criticism of him is misplaced.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As was explained earlier, the Examiners are perfectly satisfied with the chairmanship of that Committee and that the documents were signed in accordance with propriety. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) should not continue to refer to that matter.

Mr. Illsley: I wish to clear up one or two points that were raised in that last exchange. I am not calling into question the integrity of the hon. Member for Rochford. That has been done, but not by me. The multiplicity of companies involved in the Bill place the hon. Gentleman in a position of some embarrassment because, in his capacity as parliamentary consultant to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, it is possible that, without his knowledge, he could be compromised by an application by any of those companies. [Interruption.] I was not seeking to call into question the hon. Gentleman's integrity, but simply to point out that he might have been compromised without his knowledge.
There are other reasons why the Bill should not be carried over into the next Session and why the motion should be rejected this evening. The Bills will enable the ports to handle coal. The evidence before the Committee confirms that fact. The Bills will simply increase the number of coal imports down the River Humber and the total number of imports into this country when British Coal is about to break even at the end of this financial year. We hope that British Coal is about to wipe out a considerable deficit and be profitable by next April. The corporation must be profitable next year because the

Secretary of State has intimated that he will sell it off and privatise the industry. Obviously, he cannot do that unless it is profitable.
We should be promoting British coal, rather than improving the facilities for importing coal into this country. It has been stated that about 30 million tonnes of coal come into this country. I would place that figure about 20 million tonnes higher. The CEGB estimate of 30 million tonnes was made in 1986. That estimate has now been revised to 50 million tonnes.
We must also bear in mind the forthcoming privatisation of the electricity supply industry. That will have a considerable effect on the coal industry and will also bear some relation to these Bills. Those responsible for generating electricity will be able to cash in on the Secretary of State's assertions that, when the electricity industry is privatised, they will be able to purchase coal from whatever source they see fit.
The influx of imported coal will increase world prices and remove the very advantage that the Bills are seeking to secure. The British coal industry will be damaged and pressure will be brought to bear on our balance of payments, which is in a sorry state already. By the end of the century our increased electricity requirements will mean that we shall need more coal-fired power stations. These stations should be fuelled by British coal, not imported coal.
Statements have been made this week and last week to the effect that we need more nuclear power stations. Those assertions have been dismissed by the Department of Energy. Instead, we shall be looking to smaller coal-fired power stations. The nuclear power industry will suffer from the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The Government have decided to withdraw funding for two research projects into the fast breeder reactor and the fission programme. Nuclear power will be unattractive to investors in future; hence the need to place a 20 per cent. ring fence around it.
British Coal should be encouraged in its efforts to achieve profitability. It appears to be Opposition Members who are promoting a "buy British" or "support Britain" policy.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who are seeking to promote the interests of British Coal and the British people are patriotic and that those who are seeking to promote foreign interests are less patriotic?

Mr. Illsley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
A multiplicity of companies and a huge range of facilities lie behind the proposals that are set out in the Bills. There is a fear that there could be a turnkey contract. For example, Simon Engineering and its subsidiaries could build a power station on the Killingholme site—it has already been identified by the CEGB as a possible site for a power station—and that could encourage imports. That could result in many companies becoming involved in the building and running of a power station that would use imported coal.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We have heard eloquent speeches by Conservative Members in support of the motion. The Minister has not uttered one word during the debate—

Mr. Michael Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend's silence could be described as one of the best speeches of the evening.

Mr. Lloyd: It is the best speech that we have heard from the Government Dispatch Box.
If the Minister does not intend to make any comment about the merits of the Bill or those of the motion, perhaps he will clarify whether the Government are supporting the Bill, or whether they are neutral. Will we not see any member of the payroll vote supporting the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)? Would the Minister care to intervene to tell the House where the Government stand? Whenever private Bills come before the House, the Government speak the language of neutrality while voting in support of the promoters, such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his South African friends. If the Minister wishes to intervene now, I shall be happy to let him do so.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the Government's views on the carry-over motion. The Government believe that the motion should be supported. That will provide the opportunity for this important Bill to continue to be discussed.

Mr. Lloyd: Let me remind the Minister of what the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure said about carry-over motions. Members of the Minister's party as well as mine were on the Committee. The report concluded that, in principle, private Bills, like public Bills, must obtain Royal Assent within a single Session of Parliament to become law. The report quotes from the Chairman of Committees, who considered that in recent years the carry-over facility had come to be abused. It says:
He thought it right that a bill should be carried over if its progress is being impeded for reasons unconnected with its merits"—

Mr. Michael Brown: It is.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully. If, as he has said, the Bill's promoters and he are in full agreement with the report. I hope that he will withdraw his support for the motion.
The Chairman of Committees continued:
if a private bill is so controversial that progress cannot be made on it (or is not being made on it because the promoters are trying to avoid a long drawn-out Committee stage). I question whether it is reasonable for it to continue from Session to Session".
The Committee recognised the concern of the Chairman of Committees that the facility should not be abused, and it recognised that it was being abused when Bills were politically contentious, as this one is. The Committee recommended:
henceforth it should only be in the most exceptional circumstances that a private bill should be allowed to continue its passage through Parliament for more than two Sessions. A private bill should be expected to complete its progress within a single Session".
That is in black and white in the report that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes claimed to support. It he has any integrity, he will now tell the House that he accepts that the motion is inappropriate. But he has no intention of doing that, or of supporting the report.

Mr. Michael Brown: I did not put down the motion. It appeared this morning on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I saw it, thought that it was a good idea and spoke in favour of it.

Mr. Lloyd: Even at this late stage, I feel confident that if the promoters of the Bill said that they were withdrawing their support, the Chairman of Ways and Means would not wish to continue with the motion. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes can help us by telling his hon. Friends that the carry-over will be opposed, not only by the few who are afraid of constituency majorities in Nottingham, but those like the Minister, who supported the Bill on Second Reading, and his Front-Bench colleagues of the time.
The same applies to the Prime Minister, who is at the centre of this expedition. It must be unprecedented for any Prime Minister of any Government to use the full might of parliamentary procedure to force through a Bill that will do so much damage to British jobs in the mining community for so much gain for the private speculators and the foreign coal industry.
The Government are determined to reward their South African friends. The Prime Minister's Ten o'clock motion allows this private business to
be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
For the Prime Minister to be present to support the Bill and force it through by procedural means is a scandal. The Bill is massively contentious politically. All my hon. Friends who have spoken have done so on behalf of their communities and the jobs that will be decimated if the Bill is passed. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members, even the Nottingham apologists, about the real interests affected by the Bill.
No Labour Member has walked through the Division Lobby in support of the Bi11, while the overwhelming majority of Conservatives have done so. We are used to watching the honourable hypocrites on the Conservative Benches walking through the Lobby, or threatening to—

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman used the words "honourable hypocrites" about Conservative Members. I think that that is unparliamentary.— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to answer the point of order. Although the term "hypocrite" is one that I deprecate, when used in general it is acceptable according to the practice of the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I place on record the fact that I, too, deprecate the term "hypocrite". The Opposition are a little tired of listening to Conservative Members with their bleeding hearts, pretending that they have a conscience, when they feel that there is an electoral advantage. However, we see those same hon. Gentlemen prepared to vote to get rid of child benefit, to vote to keep this Government in power and to vote on any other issue that tramples on the jobs and interests of the people whom the Opposition represent. We are used to seeing those hon. Gentlemen do that, so we will take no lessons from them, under any circumstances.
This debate goes to the core of the distinction between the two political parties. My hon. Friends have consistently supported and spoken in favour of the maintenance of jobs in the coal mining industry and of jobs in industries far wider afield. My constituency has


long tradition of engineering, and it used to supply switchgear equipment to the mining industry. That switchgear industry has been decimated because of the failure of the Government to invest in our native industry. When Conservative Members are prepared to see, not just the destruction of jobs, in the mining industry, in the transport industry and in the engineering industry, but the destruction of whole communities, we are entitled to ask whose side they are on.
The report of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure talked about the need for an environmental impact assessment. It came out on Second Reading that the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will have rumbling through its streets 800 extra lorries every day. I believe that that is a suitable subject for the sort of environmental impact study recommended by the Select Committee.
There are all the arguments in the world for the Bill not being carried over, such as that the Joint Select Committee's report can be debated, so that we can have the environmental impact study and determine whether that is the proper way forward. The constituents of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes are entitled to the sort of protection, which would be given as a result of that study, but which is not being given to them by their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Labour-controlled Humberside county council commissioned a study by Coopers and Lybrand when my constituency was threatened with the possibility of nuclear waste being disposed there. It was a Labour authority that commissioned that study with a view to suggesting that there might be alternative uses for the land around the CEGB site that was to be nominated for nuclear waste disposal. The Humberside Labour-controlled county council backed the report, which recommended that there should be an improvement in dock facilities. On those grounds, the hon. Gentleman's party should disagree with the environmental impact study that he has just recommended.

Mr. Lloyd: I was referring to the recommendation made in the report of the Joint Select Committee, which the hon. Gentleman has already said he supports.
If I can go beyond the area covered by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, why can we not have an employment impact study? Why should we not have a proper study of the employment consequences of the Bill? Opposition Members have already said that 76,000 jobs in the mining industry and countless jobs outside that industry will be affected by the Bill. Why should the House not have an acceptable assessment of the employment impact, and not just the pious hope of the 100 jobs that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned? I accept that the 100 jobs in King's Lynn are valuable, but they cannot be weighed in the balance against the 76,000 jobs that my hon. Friends have sought to defend tonight.
We gave the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West the opportunity to come out of the debate with dignity when we told him that he could have a Bill that would help his port. However, instead of wanting to pursue the interests

of his port and the interests of my hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman chose to support the interests of the South African coal industry and those of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman has been paid off.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend has said, there may have been some sort of pay-off. I do not know, because, of course, we are used to a Government who reward their members through the political patronage system.
The impact of the Bill is far too great to allow it to be carried over tonight. We should accept the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, which suggest that the carry-over motion is totally inappropriate. For that reason, I shall support my hon. Friends in their opposition to it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: We have spent some three and a half hours debating the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and six hours on the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. The House has had the opportunity to consider both sides of the argument. After a long deliberation, the House decided to give the Bills a Second Reading and they were referred to a Committee. They have been dealt with most assiduously by that Committee, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would like me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) for the work that he has done on that Committee.
I believe that nothing will be gained by voting down the carry-over motions tonight. All that would happen is that the Bills would go back to square one. I appreciate that the Neanderthal elements on the Opposition Benches, who are opposed to free trade at any cost, are using every parliamentary tactic in the book—filibustering and so on —to defeat the Bills.
We believe that the Bills should be given a fair wind. We believe that it is only right and fair that those people who wish to oppose the Bills should go to the Committee and petition it. Under the assiduous chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, both sides of the argument will be heard. That is the fair and right way. It is not right for Labour Members to try to use parliamentary tactics to defeat the Bills. The House has made its decision that the Bills should go to Committee.
In support of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill I believe that I can do no better than quote the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I am sure that the House would want to pay tribute to him for the fair, careful and highly intelligent manner in which he introduced it.
Opposition Members continually state that North Killingholme will be used to import South African coal, but that is a red herring. On 22 June 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said:
The import and export traffic will be in bulk commodities, which include grain"—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1183.]

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for people who obviously received favours from the South African Government to participate in this debate? It is clear that certain Conservative Members have had buckshee trips to South Africa.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for an hon. Member who wishes to be called to stand.

Mr. Leigh: That intervention was irrelevant to my speech, but let me make it clear that I have received no favours from the South African Government.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand your ruling about hon. Members wishing to speak, which is perfectly correct, but if the House votes, a different issue arises. "Erskine May" points out that Members cannot vote if they have a direct pecuniary interest.
The Register of Members' Interests, drawn up by a Select Committee appointed by this House, includes in its requirements all trips paid for by outside organisations that are not in the service of this House. Several Conservative Members have been to South Africa, paid for by the South African Government. The Bill could give facilities for the importation of South African coal.
I believe that there is a clear link between the effects of the Bill and the benefits that some hon. Members have gained from the South African Government. Therefore, in the light of the ruling from a previous Speaker when a private Bill was being promoted in favour of Lloyd's, I believe that hon. Members should bear their interests in mind and refrain from voting.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that hon. Members will bear that in mind, and that if they have any interests they will be honourable and declare them.

Mr. Leigh: I have absolutely no interest in this Bill except that it will benefit my constituents who have witnessed the revival of north Lincolnshire under this Government. They have seen unemployment cut. They have seen inflation cut. They have seen new prosperity come to our area. That is why I support the Bill. That is why I want more trade. That is why my farmers want more grain to be exported. It is typical that Opposition Members should always take a narrow, negative and old-fashioned view. The Conservatives have confidence and faith in our ability to export from this port. Why do Opposition Members always assume that we shall import South African coal? Why are they so worried about our ability to beat the world in its free markets?
This is a fine Bill, which will be carefully considered by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and the Committee. If the Opposition think that they have a case —they have not—they can take their argument to my hon. Friend. Why are they using filibustering tactics and raising irrelevant points of order? Perhaps they do not have the confidence in their own case.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be difficult if an hon. Member participating in the debate was sponsored by a mining union, when Opposition Members have drawn attention to other hon. Members' interests?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Opposition Members in glasshouses should not throw stones. They have all been trooping into the debate. Why, for once, do we see such a high turnout of Labour Members? Does it have anything to do with the Bill's merits? No, they are all in the pockets of Arthur Scargill. I know what the country thinks of Arthur Scargill—the people have no time for him.
The Bill will go through on its merits. It will receive the full support of the House of Commons. It will bring prosperity to the area that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes represent. I recommend it to my hon. Friends.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question is the motion on the Order Paper.
As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
To the contrary No.

Hon Members: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies.

Question put:

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Frank Dobson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, we have had a lot of talk about tapes. If anyone listens to the tape of this debate, it will be absolutely clear beyond doubt that at the appropriate point there was no cry of "Aye"—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am to be heard, I ask hon. Members to listen. A Division is now in progress.

The House having divided: Ayes 212, Noes 157.

Division No. 477]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beggs, Roy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CL't's)
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Cash, William
Gower, Sir Raymond


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Couchman, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hanley, Jeremy


Curry, David
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Harris, David


Day, Stephen
Haselhurst, Alan


Devlin, Tim
Hayes, Jerry


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dorrell, Stephen
Hayward, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Heddle, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mudd, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Mellor, David
Trotter, Neville


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walters, Sir Dennis


Moore, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Woodcock, Mike


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Battle, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foster, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Holland, Stuart


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hume, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Ingram, Adam





Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert


Johnston, Sir Russell
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, John


Kennedy, Charles
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Lambie, David
Redmond, Martin


Lamond, James
Richardson, Jo


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McGrady, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McTaggart, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Mallon, Seamus
Strang, Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Wall, Pat


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morley, Elliott
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Nellist, Dave



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Haynes and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Allen Adams.

Division No. 478]
[9.51 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Chris
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Couchman, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cran, James
Harris, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Haselhurst, Alan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hayes, Jerry


Devlin, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dunn, Bob
Heddle, John


Durant, Tony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)






Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howells, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Irvine, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Scott, Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shersby, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trippier, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Miller, Sir Hal
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mills, Iain
Walden, George


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Sir Charles
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Woodcock, Mike


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. David Davis and


Page, Richard
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,


That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall he laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (h) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, and the Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, consequential Amendments made by the Lords and Lords Amendments in lieu of certain Commons Amendments to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords.] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Promoters of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That thXere shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bills)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 159.

Division No. 478]
[9.51 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Chris
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Couchman, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cran, James
Harris, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Haselhurst, Alan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hayes, Jerry


Devlin, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dunn, Bob
Heddle, John


Durant, Tony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)






Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howells, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Irvine, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Scott, Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shersby, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trippier, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Miller, Sir Hal
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mills, Iain
Walden, George


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Sir Charles
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Woodcock, Mike


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. David Davis and


Page, Richard
Mr. Edward Leigh.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alexander, Richard
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Buchan, Norman


Beckett, Margaret
Buckley, George J.


Beith, A. J.
Caborn, Richard


Bell, Stuart
Callaghan, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAllion, John


Clay, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McCartney, Ian


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McLeish, Henry


Cox, Tom
McLoughlin, Patrick


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Galbraith, Sam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Haynes, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Ruddock, Joan


Henderson, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Illsley, Eric
Stott, Roger


Ingram, Adam
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Vaz, Keith


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wallace, James


Kilfedder, James
Walley, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Knowles, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litherland, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Livingstone, Ken
Wray, Jimmy


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Kevin Barron.

Division No. 479]
[10.05 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bowis, John
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Sir Antony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Chris
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, George






Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gow, Ian
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayes, Jerry
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Redwood, John


Hayward, Robert
Renton, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Heddle, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hind, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rowe, Andrew


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howard, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Scott, Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Squire, Robin


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Steen, Anthony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sumberg, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lang, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Latham, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thornton, Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trippier, David


Lord, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maclean, David
Walden, George


Mans, Keith
Waller, Gary


Maples, John
Ward, John


Marlow, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Warren, Kenneth


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Watts, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wells, Bowen


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Mellor, David
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. David Davis and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Edward Leigh.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Illsley, Eric


Alexander, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Allen, Graham
John, Brynmor


Alton, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kilfedder, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Battle, John
Knowles, Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Bell, Stuart
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lewis, Terry


Bermingham, Gerald
Litherland, Robert


Blair, Tony
Livingstone, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Bradley, Keith
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McAllion, John


Buchan, Norman
McAvoy, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
McCartney, Ian


Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Bob
Madden, Max


Clelland, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Martlew, Eric


Cox, Tom
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Doran, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Duffy, A. E. P.
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Foulkes, George
Richardson, Jo


Fraser, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fyfe, Maria
Robertson, George


Galbraith, Sam
Rogers, Allan


Galloway, George
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ruddock, Joan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Henderson, Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Hinchliffe, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Hood, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Vaz, Keith






Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N.



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Kevin Barron.


Winnick, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bills)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, consequential Amendments made by the Lords and Lords Amendments in lieu of certain Commons Amendments, considered.

Clause 18

INFRINGEMENT BY ISSUE OF COPIES TO THE PUBLIC

The Lords have disagreed to the amendments made by the Commons:

In page 9, line 4, leave out
', except as mentioned in subsection (3),'.

In page 9, line 8, leave out 'their importation' and insert
'any subsequent importation of those copies'.

In page 9, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'relation' and insert 'except that in'.

In page 9, line 10, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'. but have proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:

No. 1, in page 9, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

'(2) References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work are to the act of putting into circulation copies not previously put into circulation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and to—

(a) any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of those copies, or
(b) any subsequent importation of those copies into the United Kingdom;
except that in relation to sound recordings, films and computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public.'

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be much obliged if hon. Members leaving the Chamber did so quietly, so that we can hear the Minister explain these important amendments.

Mr. Forth: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether conversations could be carded out on the other side of the swing doors, please.

Mr. Forth: It would be inappropriate for the House to linger at length on these matters. They have been dealt with in detail in both Houses and we are here to consider the largely technical and clarificatory measures that the other place has brought to bear on this important matter.
I shall outline briefly the intention behind each amendment. Amendment No. 1 seeks to improve the drafting and makes it clear that if copies have been issued to the public overseas, importation and putting copies in circulation in the United Kingdom is not a restricted act.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend used to be on television.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a pity, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you did not reside in the Yorkshire Television viewing area.
We have a full House for the class reunion of the Committee and those who sat through the earlier stages of the Bill, but we are minus the prefect. It is an interesting augury for the Minister and myself that the two Front Bench spokesmen in the earlier arguments have gone on to meteoric rises within their respective parties. We are now beginning to tread the same path as tail-end Charlies, perhaps with the emphasis on Charlie.
The Labour party will not oppose the Bill or talk at length. We welcome the general principle of the revision of the copyright legislation. We broadly support the Bill. There are one or two things that we would have liked to change and which we tried strenuously to change at earlier stages. For instance, we would have liked to change the rights of journalists and design rights. Those arguments are now over. We would have liked the Government to make more concessions to the House of Lords. They could have afforded to throw a few crumbs from a rather crumby table, but they did not. That means that we do not have much on which to bite. In fact, if we were to make a meal of it, it would be anorexia nervosa turned into a system of debate. We are simply cleaning up and polishing the final Lords amendments, which in the main we are happy to accept.
Amendment No. 1 attracted the only Division in the other place and, unfortunately, we lost by 10 votes. We wanted to extend rights to authors as well as producers, but that argument is now behind us.
The issue is one of definition. I would call it a "Spycatcher" definition. The Government have a certain amount of expertise in things that have been imported and sold before they have been published. They have wasted much money in developing their knowledge of that. Lord Young of Graffham, Saatchi and Thomson explained the amendment eloquently and we cannot see any objection to it. We shall bow to the wisdom of the noble Lord and his representative on earth.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70

PROVISION OF SUB-TITLED COPIES OF BROADCAST OR CABLE PROGRAMME

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:

In page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) A designated body may, for the purpose of providing people who are deaf or hard of hearing with copies which are sub-titled or othewise modified for their special needs, makes copies of television broadcasts or cable programmes and issue copies to the public, without infringing any copyright in the broadcasts or cable programmes or works included in them.'.

with the following amendment:

No. 2, in line 3, after 'hearing', insert—
', or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways,'.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider Lords amendment No. 14, to the Commons amendment to schedule 2.

Mr. Forth: These amendments tabled by Lord Williams and accepted by the Government, extend to other

physically and mentally handicapped people the benefit of the exceptions in clause 70 and paragraph 17 of schedule 2, which allow subtitling of recordings of broadcasts for deaf people. This is an important measure, and we hope that the House will give its approval.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a little churlish for the Minister to introduce the amendment in that fashion. He might have commemorated the great Labour triumph in the House of Lords in forcing the Government to accept this obvious and sensible concession by widening the clause to all physically and mentally handicapped people. It would have been ludicrous if videos for autistic children had not been included.
It is interesting to note that the Government did not include that in the first place, but had to be forced to include it by our amendment in the House of Lords. There was no vote on the issue because the Government knew that they would be beaten in a place where, at least until today, bleeding hearts had some strength. The physically and mentally handicapped are well represented in the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I support the amendment and pay tribute to Lord Williams of Elvel and to the Opposition in the House of Lords, who tabled the amendment in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109

ORDER AS TO DISPOSAL OF INFRINGING COPY OR OTHER ARTICLE

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:

To insert a second new clause in place of clause 109:
'.—(1) Where an infringing copy or other article has been delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 94 or 104, or has been seized and detained in pursuance of the right conferred by section 95, an application may be made to the court—

(a) for an order that it shall be forfeited to the copyright owner or destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit, or
(b) for a decision that no such order should be made.

(2) In considering what order (if any) should be made, the court shall consider whether other remedies available in an action for infringement of copyright would be adequate to compensate the copyright owner and to protect his interests.
(3) Provision shall be made by rules of court as to the service of notice on persons having an interest in the copy or other article, and any such person is entitled—

(a) to appear in proceedings for an order under this section, whether or not he was served with notice, and
(b) to appeal against any order made, whether or not he appeared;

and an order shall not take effect until the end of the period within which notice of an appeal may be given or, if before the end of that period notice of appeal is duly given, until the final determination or abandonment of the proceedings on the appeal.
(4) Where there is more than one person interested in a copy or other article, the court shall make such order as it thinks just and may (in particular) direct that the article be sold, or otherwise dealt with, and the proceeds divided.
(5) If the court decides that no order should be made under this section, the person in whose possession, custody or control the copy or other article was before being delivered up or seized is entitled to its return.
(6) References in this section to a person having an interest in a copy or other article include any person in whose favour an order could be made in respect of it under this section or under section (Order as to disposal of illicit recordings) or (Order as to disposal of infringing article, &amp;c.)


of this Act or section 58BA of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (which make similar provision in relation to infringement of rights in performances, design right and trade marks).'
with the following amendment:
No. 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) An application may be made to the court for an order that an infringement copy of other article delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 94 or 104, or seized and detained in pursuance of the right conferred by section 95, shall be)—

(a) forfeited to the copyright owner, or
(b) destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit, or for a decision that no such order should be made.'

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Mr. Forth: The amendments mean that an application for a forfeiture order need not await successful execution of an order for delivery up.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Once again we support the principle of the amendment. It is right that we should provide a procedure for forfeiture in these cases and that it should be quick, efficient and enforceable. The amendments move in that direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 111

SCOPE OF GENERAL CONTROL OF LICENSING SCHEMES

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:

In page 46, line 17, leave out 'general control' and insert
'references and applications with respect to'

with the following amendment:

No. 4, in line 1, after 'control', insert 'of.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

Mr. Forth: These amendments replace an amendment that was agreed to in the Commons on Report, despite drafting defects, as a procedural device to ensure an opportunity for further parliamentary consideration. It was made clear that, although the Government were sympathetic to the intention of the amendment moved by an all-party group on behalf of registered clubs, the amendment was unlikely to be acceptable as it stood. I think that this amendment will go all the way to giving the clubs what they wanted.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister glossed over what looks like some incompetence in the drafting of the legislation. It is fairly typical of the Government that they are so obsessed with a certain type of control that they do not exert proper control over drafting of legislation. However, we shall let that pass, because the amendments are technical.

Mr. Frank Doran: In my printed copy there seems to be a typographical error in

amendment No. 4(5). I think that the word "included" should read "concluded". Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.

Mr. Forth: I assume that it is a typographical error. The intention is as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could draw the attention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) to the list of corrections.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

New Clause

CROWN USE OF REGISTERED DESIGN: COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROFIT.

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:

To insert a second new clause after clause 252:
'.—(1) In Schedule 1 to the Registered Designs Act 1949 (Crown use), after paragraph 2 insert—

"Compensation for loss of profit.

2A.—(l) Where Crown use is made of a registered design, the government department concerned shall pay—

(a) to the registered proprietor, or
(b) if there is an exclusive licence in force in respect of the design, to the exclusive licensee,

compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the articles to which the design is applied.

(2) Compensation is payable only to the extent that such a contract could have been fulfilled from his existing manufacturing capacity; but is payable notwithstanding the existence of circumstances rendering him ineligible for the award of such a contract.

(3) In determining the loss, regard shall be had to the profit which would have been made on such a contract and to the extent to which any manufacturing capacity was under-used.

(4) No compensation is payable in respect of any failure to secure contracts for the supply of articles to which the design is applied otherwise than for the services of the Crown.

(5) The amount payable under this paragraph shall, if not agreed between the registered proprietor or licensee and the government department concerned with the approval of the Treasury, be determined by the court on a reference under paragraph 3; and it is in addition to any amount payable under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Schedule.

(6) In this paragraph—
'Crown use', in relation to a design, means the doing of anything by virtue of paragraph 1 which would otherwise be an infringement of the right in the design; and
'the government department concerned', in relation to such use, means the government department who or on whose authority the act was done.".

(2) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule (reference of disputes as to Crown use) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
(1) Any dispute as to—

(a) the exercise by a Government department, or a person authorised by a Government department, of the powers conferred by paragraph 1 of this Schedule,
(b) terms for the use of a design for the services of the Crown under that paragraph,
(c) the right of any person to receive any part of a payment made under paragraph 1(3), or
(d) the right of any person to receive a payment under paragraph 2A,

may be referred to the court by either party to the dispute.".

(3) The above amendments apply in relation to any Crown use of a registered design after the commencement of this section, even if the terms for such use were settled before commencement.

with the following amendment:

No. 10, in line 38, leave out 'who' and insert 'by whom'.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16.

Mr. Forth: Proceedings have been overlengthy, and it would be inappropriate for me to go into detail on these amendments. I assure the House that they are all technical. I shall provide detail if necessary, but I think that the House can accept the amendments as improvements to the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I would be filibustering if I replied to the Minister, but that vicious personal attack on me for dragging out the proceedings of the House after the Minister's lengthy contributions is bitterly resented.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 16 agreed to.

Scottish Salmon Netting Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. John Home Robertson: In initiating this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Scottish salmon netting industry, I declare a nominal and, I hope, temporary interest in this industry, and make it clear that neither I nor my family derive any income from any form of fishery.
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the fate of a small traditional rural industry in Scotland, which used to employ directly over 1,500 on a regular seasonal basis. I fear that the salmon netting industry is being systematically destroyed by blatantly discriminatory action by the Government, combined with inappropriate dealings by what is supposed to be a charitable trust. This is an example of the shameless promotion by the Government and the rest of the establishment of the interests of a group of influential landowners, regardless of the rights of small netting businesses and their employees. These are the points that I wish to expose during this debate.
The lawful salmon netting industry has provided seasonal employment in rural communities on the estuaries of our main rivers since time immemorial. Netsmen have been subject to detailed regulations to prevent overfishing, and the industry has operated side by side with angling interests for centuries without any suggestion that the nets were a threat to the survival of the wild salmon. My understanding was that, even recently, nets have been taking only about 15 per cent. of available stocks.
Apart from the direct contribution of about 1,500 regular seasonal jobs to the rural community, the traditional net and coble fishing technique has been an attractive feature of the lower reaches of our rivers from the Borders right up to Caithness. It is part of the local tourist attraction in many of these areas. This industry is disappearing rapidly, as a result of a two-pronged attack involving sabotage by the Government, on the one hand, and, on the other, acquisitions by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland), which has the unlikely charitable objective of destroying this perfectly legitimate industry.
I suspect that the Minister will accuse me of attacking rod fishermen and seeking to frustrate a conservation initiative, so let me deal with those two points straight away. There is an urgent need for action to conserve salmon. Salmon stocks have suffered grievously as a result of several factors. They have been hit by increased fishing at sea at various points between Greenland and Northumberland; they are suffering from the ravages of disease and pollution; and there is no question but that illegal netting with fixed monofilament gear is taking a heavy toll.
There would be overwhelming justification for taking effective action to deal with any of those problems, and I would be interested to know whether the Government or the new Salmon Advisory Committee have come up with any ideas or initiatives to deal with those problems. I note, incidentally, that the Salmon Advisory Committee's paper


on information on the status of salmon stocks, which was published only last month, simply confirms that the available information is next to useless.
I have the impression that very little is happening to conserve salmon. The Government have copped out on the positive suggestion of a tagging scheme, and I fear that the proposed dealer licensing scheme will be little more than a window-dressing exercise. All this pressure to be seen to be doing something about salmon conservation has focused, totally irrationally, on the unfortunate legal netsmen. The fact that they are not a significant part of the problem is evidently not important. They are a small and dispersed group of seasonal workers who can be picked off easily. Significantly, their removal leads to an immediate financial return for the proprietors of valuable upstream rod fishing beats.
I turn now to the matter of the rights of rod fishermen and the value of the tourist industry. The Labour party is strongly committed to promoting the interests of anglers. Unlike the Government, we want to see initiatives to promote public access to fishing on the rivers of Scotland. We also recognise the value and potential of the tourist industry. However, the destruction of the legal netting industry has nothing to do with those objectives. It is simply designed to further inflate charges for salmon fishing, which will make the sport even more exclusive. There is little room for more anglers on our main rivers. They will have to pay more to the landowners. The fact that so many of those landowners are absentees will minimise any benefit to the local economy.
The hypocrisy of those people who want to shut down the nets in the interests of conservation is graphically exposed when the self-same people want to extend their lucrative rod fishing season on rivers such as the Dee, regardless of the fact they will be taking fish that are on the point of spawning.
I turn now to the Government's rather squalid part in these affairs. Ministers have evidently been persuaded by influential friends to initiate a series of measures to strengthen the position of rod fishing proprietors against all other interests, and particularly against the netsmen. First, the Salmon Act 1986 entrenched the rights of proprietors, despite Opposition efforts to promote the public interest. Then, earlier this year, the Government imposed new regulations to reduce the catch at netting stations by 20 per cent. by extending the weekly close time to 60 hours, although opposition to that measure came not only from Opposition Members, but, significantly, from the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).
The next threat is to introduce drastic changes to permitted netting techniques to make it even more difficult for netsmen to make a living. These blatantly discriminatory measures have already had drastic effects on the number of small netting businesses. They could be described as a form of expropriation without compensation, because that has been the effect on some of those small businesses.
All these Government initiatives are given spurious justification by referring to the need for conservation. In Committee, the Minister went round and round the issue and, in the end, said:
The mortality rates of salmon in the open sea are increasing.
He went on to urge the Committee to support

a precautionary measure to reduce the exploitation of salmon in home waters."—[0fficial Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. 4 May 1988; c. 25.] We should note the logic of that. There is a problem out on the high seas, so the Government take action in the rivers.
I pressed the Minister further on that matter when I put a parliamentary question to him on 18 May. I asked
if he will place in the Library any scientific evidence which is available to him concerning the effect of legal netting operations on salmon stocks in Scottish rivers; and if he will review the weekly close time for such operations before the start of the 1989 season in the light of such evidence.
The reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), came with characteristic bluntness. He said:
No. The scientific evidence available to the Government reflected the outcome of research and monitoring work on the state of salmon stocks in Scotland and was discussed in the course of the consideration of the weekly close time regulations by the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 4 May. The Government have no plans for a further review of weekly close time for salmon net fishing in Scotland."—[Official Report, 18 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 469–70.]
The refusal to publish the scientific case against legal netsmen may well mean that the evidence is either unconvincing or, as I suspect, non-existent.
This softening-up operation carried out by the Government, combined with falling fish stocks and lower market prices, has made salmon netsmen an easy prey for predators such as the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust. It is a strange coincidence that the Crown Estate Commissioners have chosen this moment in history to sell off their 150 tenanted netting stations. In present circumstances, tenants cannot aford to buy their netting stations, and even those who can afford to do so have not been given the opportunity by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
We do not know to whom the commissioners will be prepared to sell those fisheries, but I wonder whether the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust will be involved, either directly or indirectly, ln any of those deals. I note, incidentally, that the chairman of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Earl of Mansfield, who was at some time a Minister of State, Scottish Office, is being paid £8,500 a year by the Tay river board not to work his fisheries at Scone on the Tay. We have the flavour of what is going on there.
The Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust is a shady organisation which evidently has access to large sums of money. It set up shop in 1985 and spent £83,000 that year on acquiring and extinguishing netting rights. In 1986, the figure was £460,269, and in 1987 it was £828,663, which may or may not include £286,000 of forward commitments for 1988. Total spending on the purchase of netting rights up to March 1988 came to almost £1·25 million on several rivers. These included the Spey, the Deveron, the Dee, the Don, the Alness, the Conon, the Beauly, the Ness, the Nairn, the Findhorn, the Lossie, the Tweed and the Solway.
There is an interesting twist to the trust's operations on the Solway. It spent £234,200 on buying fisheries, and I gather from an answer that I received last week from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces that his Department stumped up £135,000 of that sum to help the trust to buy the Loch and Dornock fishery. I find that a surprising use of taxpayers' money. I also find it a surprising price to pay for what seems to be a modest


property. I wonder whether someone somewhere received a backhander. I think that we should know more about that.
In the course of these wheelings and dealings there has been no compensation for tenant netsmen whose businesses have been sabotaged by the extension of close time. There is no provision for working netsmen who lose their jobs. As seasonal workers, they have no right to redundancy payments. They merely discover during the close season that their jobs have disappeared following secret negotiations with the trust. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will know that in his area there was an interesting variation on the theme. A rather colourful group of English international cricketers took over the ailing Berwick Salmon Fishing Company, only to strip its assets and sell it to the trust in a matter of months.
The main objective of the trust is to destroy the netting industry, which, rather surprisingly, has been accepted by the Inland Revenue as a charitable purpose. The upstream proprietors can invest in manoeuvres that enhance the value of their properties with the advantage of charitable tax relief. The sources of the trust's massive finances have been a closely guarded secret, but its agents on the Borders blew the gaffe in a letter to Tweed proprietors dated 23 August. The Duke of Roxburghe, no less, wrote:
As all the Tweed proprietors, and proprietors of all the main tributaries are likely to benefit enormously over the course of the next few years from the removal of the bulk of the netting presence and the subsequent control of the Tweed salmon stocks for conservation, it would be nice to think that all proprietors interested in salmon conservation would contribute to the ASCT(S), possibly in proportion to their assessable value.
Isn't that nice? The duke was appealing for a cool £600,000 over two years. The terms of the letter make it clear that contributions towards the enterprise will by no stretch of the imagination be charitable donations. They will be commercial investments and should be treated accordingly. I understand that a similar levy system is proposed for the Tay.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the duke even had the gall to appeal to the local authorities, whose ratepayers had been put out of work by the actions of the trust, to finance these activities? The response was pretty cool.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am aware of that. That shows the brass neck that these people have. I am grateful to the duke for exposing the hypocrisy and thoroughly corrupt nature of what is taking place, perhaps inadvertently.
I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Inland Revenue office in Edinburgh to draw attention to this abuse of charitable status. I have demanded retrospective action to recover charitable tax relief from the organisation. I have received no substantive reply to my correspondence. I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm that the charitable status of the trust is being reviewed in the light of this damning evidence.
I suppose that it can be argued that those who are hostile to legitimate netsmen, for whatever reason, are entitled to buy and extinguish netting rights by free-market transactions, but it is obscene for people who stand to gain directly from such developments to make purchases with the benefit of charitable tax relief.
The really squalid element is the fact that Her Majesty's Government are stabbing the netting industry in the back to enhance the position of the rod fishing proprietors. Perhaps the most shameless manifestation of such top-level connivance came in the House on 20 July this year, when the Government whipped in 287 Tory members to vote to take salmon rod fishing rights out of the rating system in Scotland—just hours after the same Whips were required to defeat the measure to relieve disabled people from the poll tax. What a contrast of priorities! But I suppose that we should never under-estimate the Tory party's commitment to the landowning fraternity in Scotland. Who knows—perhaps that gratuitous handout of £1·5 million in rating relief for impoverished lairds will help to fund the financial commitments of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust.
A centuries-old tradition of legal netting is falling prey to a sordid alliance between riparian owners and their friends in the Government. I hope that remaining netsmen on the Tay and elsewhere will be able to survive the onslaught, but I think that the saddest footnote for the salmon is that this clearance of legal netsmen is leaving the lower reaches of our rivers wide open for unscrupulous high-tech poachers. Genuine conservation is further away than ever, despite the protestations of those involved in the affair.
I find it difficult to choose between the poachers who fish illegally and the other category of big-time property poachers who are behind the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust, such as Sir William Gordon-Cumming and the hon. Patrick Wills, both of whom are trustees and have either direct or indirect connections with the Moray Firth Salmon Fishery Company, which could, I suspect, stand to benefit from any future revival of netting rights acquired by the trust. It is interesting to speculate on that possibility.
There can be no justification for the vicious discrimination and harassment suffered by Scotland's salmon netsmen. As the House has a duty to protect citizens' rights, we are entitled to demand an urgent and, if necessary, retrospective review of the trust's charitable status, in the hope that anything forthcoming from it would help to restore the employment of those thrown out of work without compensation. We should also demand an assurance from the Minister that he will publish proper, credible, scientific evidence about the impact of netting on salmon stocks, and that he will review the weekly close time in the light of that evidence.
The Minister can say what he likes when he replies, but I should like straight replies to two specific questions. First, is a review being conducted, internally or otherwise, by the Inland Revenue into the charitable status of this highly suspect trust? Secondly, will there be a proper review by the Government of the impact of netting on salmon stocks, in the light of genuine evidence, not hearsay, pressure or political arm-twisting?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Roberston). I must say that his criticism of the Government as champions of the landowning fraternity is


hard to take from that quarter. As the hon. Gentleman presides over some 1,000 acres in the Borders, I am not sure whether I can champion him.
The hon. Gentleman made his views on the activities of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust pretty clear. They are already well known, and I listened in vain tonight for anything new that he might have to say. He has criticised it, not for the first time, for buying out nets in various rivers and around the coast of Scotland. It is clear that the sales of those netting stations are purely commercial arrangements between willing purchasers and willing sellers. I realise that where the stations have been leased the lessee will be the loser if the agreement takes the nets out of operation, and that there will also be a loss of mainly seasonal employment, but I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should do about it. Certainly nothing in current legislation would allow us to take action, even if we thought it justified.
The hon. Gentleman has also seen fit to criticise the charitable status of the trust and I understand that he is pursuing the matter through other channels. That is, of course, a matter for him and I do not intend now or in the future to comment on the trust's status or the tax benefits arising from that status. The tax position is a matter between the Revenue and the individual or the individual company. However, I deplore the hon. Gentleman's use of this place to attack an organisation that is committed to the conservation of salmon, by referring to it as a shady organisation and making the accusations that he has made using the cloak of privilege.
The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the Trust's stated aim is to conserve a balanced stock of fish by managing that stock of fish in respective rivers of origin. There are many—not just proprietors—who will support that aim and who would prefer to see local, small-scale fishing effort, including nets where appropriate, take the place of large-scale commercial catching of salmon in coastal areas. The issue is one of balance, and it would be wrong to suggest that heritable rights can never be acquired or used in a different way to take account of changing interests or changing circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is, if I may say so, a personal embodiment of that principle. He has sought to criticise the trustees of the trust and to suggest that they have interests, but he must know that none of the three trustees has any personal interest in the ownership of salmon fisheries. The articles of the trusts specifically prohibit any fishing proprietor from being a trustee.
The hon. Gentleman referred to illegal fishing, but there should be a better appreciation on his part of what the Government and other enforcement agencies are doing at present. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is aware of the increase in the reports of illegal fishing both in coastal waters and further out at sea, and has deployed enforcement resources accordingly. The hon. Gentleman asked what initiatives had been taken. I do not know whether he is aware of the successful prosecution of an Irish vessel operating outwith the 12–mile United Kingdom limit and the resulting penalty of some £9,500 for salmon offences. In addition, over 17 miles of illegally set salmon nets have been lifted by the protection service, and plans are already being made for enforcement deployment in 1989.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the loss of fishing time and the absence of lawful netsmen for the additional hours of the weekly close time will lead to less watching of the

estuaries and the coast. I am not sure whether that is the case, but I would point out that there is an argument which, if it is pursued along those lines, comes to the absurd conclusion that there should be no weekly close time at all, on the basis that the continuous presence of netsmen and anglers will reduce or eliminate poaching.

Mr. Home Robertson: That is a rather weak point for the Minister to be reading from his brief, and whoever gave it to him needs to be checked out. The hon. Gentleman is not the sort of person whom I would normally invite to my house, but if he is seriously interested in this matter, on any weekend he could come to where I live on the Tweed and I could show him ample evidence of poaching, which was much less prevalent when there were people whose job it was to look after those banks and net those rivers legally. Now that those people have been removed, because of the actions of the hon. Gentleman and those of the trust, that estuary is bandit territory and the netting effort has increased.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence or can point to examples of people who are breaking the law, it is not me whom he should invite to witness that. I must say that he has double standards. The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for derating salmon property in Scotland and the resources being made available to the boards, but at the same time he argues that more action should be taken against poachers.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The effect of derating will be to make additional resources available to district fishery boards and thereby increase the resources that they have available to enforce action.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way.

Mr. Wilson: What the Minister is saying is utter rubbish.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Forsyth.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he will make any progress in the House by being offensive and difficult, he has something to learn.
The hon. Member for East. Lothian said that the loss of fishing time and the absence of lawful netsmen for the additional hours of the weekly close time will lead to less watching of the estuaries and the coast. If the hon. Gentleman followed that argument to its logical conclusion, we would have no close time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Labour Government—

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not sought to intervene in the Adjournment debate, and if the Minister is not giving way, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for East Lothian will recall that it was a Labour Government who, in 1951, first


extended the close time—without any compensation for the interests for whom the hon. Gentleman has made a plea tonight.
The hon. Gentleman made much play of the arguments about weekly close time for salmon netting. Earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman and I had a long discussion about this matter. We have consulted widely on our proposals and we have taken account of the views that have been expressed by the various interests. We did not bring the increase in close time into force immediately, as was done in 1951, and we gave notice until 6 May 1988 so that netsmen had a little breathing space.
Of course it is understandable that, since then, representations have been made on behalf of netsmen. I understand, however, that there is considerable support for the Government's decision. When the hon. Gentleman adopts a one-sided approach to the matter, he would do well to bear in mind that support as well as the fact that many regard the Government's decision favourably, on conservation grounds. The hon. Gentleman, more than most hon. Members, should appreciate the importance of passing on to the next generation what the present generation has inherited.
It is repeatedly alleged that an increase in the weekly close time is unnecessary because most, if not all, rivers in Scotland are fully stocked. All that the scientific evidence shows, however, is that young salmon can be found in all Scottish rivers where access and water quality are adequate. That does not mean that all rivers are fully stocked. There can be no doubt, in my view, that increasing the weekly close time will lead to larger numbers of eggs being deposited. In some areas that may well result in increased production of smolts. What is clear is that simply tinkering with the close time would have done no good at all—any increase had to be fairly substantial.
There is no reason why netsmen should continue to take such a high proportion of the fish landed. Their

heritable rights give them no entitlement to a fixed proportion of the catch. At a time when salmon farming is producing large and growing quantities of salmon for the table and export, I can think of no logical reason for not shifting the balance of exploitation from netting to angling to some extent, which makes a greater contribution to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Wilson: Rubbish.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider his constituency interests and the interests of the hotel, tourist and service sector, which benefit from the substantial contributions made by rod fishing.
This debate has highlighted once again the divergence of views that the issue of wild salmon arouses. Clearly I cannot satisfy the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), but I can point to evidence of the positive measures that the Government have taken to improve the management and conservation of wild salmon.
The Salmon Act 1986 was a major step forward. It gave new impetus to local conservation and enforcement by district salmon fishery boards and initiated the review of north-east of England drift net fishery. It set up the Salmon Advisory Committee, whose first report we are now considering.
The Government have played a major part in the wider, international conservation efforts of NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—and other bodies and will continue to do so. Conservation of wild salmon is a major heritage, amenity and economic issue for Scotland, as it has been for centuries. The hon. Gentleman may want to fossilise one aspect of salmon fishing, but times change and I believe that the measures that the Government are taking reflect the wider public interest in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.